On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:40:10 -0500 "Anurag S. Maskey" <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> http://zhadum.east/export/ws/am223141/checkout-area/nwam1-fixes/webrev/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >> [...] > >> > >>>> ncu_ip.c:1013,1032 Even if we get to 1013 isn't 1032 still going to > >>>> fail? > >>>> > >>> No. line 1013 has found the ifname with lifnum and then 1032 gets > >>> the flags for that interface. any reason it would fail? > >>> > >> > >> Doesn't the only way that (new line numbers) 1024 get executed is if > >> the address has been removed. Then 1038 would fail? > >> > >> > >> > > This happens when the interface is unplumbed, so icfg_get_flags() will > > fail. We should only fail and exit when we are adding addresses. I've > > updated the code and added comments to explain. Thanks for picking it up. > > > > > comments?? > I answered late Friday evening (looking back at my sent log it was directly to you; the list wasn't cc'd). This looks fine. Michael
