Yes, that's right. I only covered some of them and I did not include
all status-es in 6806938.
But now when I take another look at 4616660, the only things that will
remain are icmp_status and ip_rput_pullups. ip_rput_pullups has to be
removed as per Jim's comment in the CR. I can add support for
icmp_status and send the webrev again.
When icmp_status is done, I think we can close 4616660, right?
Thanks
Vasumathi
[email protected] wrote:
On (03/10/09 17:33), Peter Memishian wrote:
Is there a reason icmp_status_report() was considered out-of-scope for
this work?
Vasumathi can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the intention
was to break 4616660 off into smaller fragments until all the
status reports listed in 4616660 were covered (hence the new
bug, 6806928). I don't know if the webrev covers all _status-es
except icmp_status?
--Sowmini
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
