On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:59:55 -0400
Sebastien Roy <Sebastien.Roy at Sun.COM> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses.
>
> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 15:45 -0700, Michael Hunter wrote:
> > seb-097 ncu_ip.c'540-582: The strategy used to figure out if a logical
> > interface is needed or if it's the first address seems error prone and
> > certainly not thread safe (although I'm not sure if thread safety is a
> > concern for this function). This seems to be needed as a side-effect of the
> > distinction between the newly introduced icfg_add_ipaddr() vs.
> > icfg_set_addr() functions. It should be possible to fix this by defining a
> > single icfg_add_addr() function that just does the right thing.
> >
> > rewritten significantly, less complex and covers add/set distinction in
> > add_ip_address
> >
> > On a related note, why is one _ipaddr() and the other _addr()?
> >
> > We inherited libinetcfg. Ask the bad boy who wrote it?
>
> My point is that there is an existing convension of _addr in libinetcfg,
Which makes sense since its libinetcfg, not libnetcfg.
> and the NWAM project is adding a conflicting convention of _ipaddr. The
> disparate nomenclature is entirely due to the new NWAM code. I don't
> understand the response.
I didn't understand your question correctly. I've changed
icfg_{add,remove}_ipaddr() to icfg_{add,remove}_addr();
mph
>
> -Seb
>
>
