On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:21:13PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Seems like rtsol and/or setting an IPv6 address doesn't activate AF_INET6
> even though it should.
Perhaps my in6.c change broke it?
> Index: sys/netinet6/in6.c
> ===
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:43:39PM -0800, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Henning Brauer [hb-openbsdt...@ml.bsws.de] wrote:
> > now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
> > IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
> > fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFX
Henning Brauer [hb-openbsdt...@ml.bsws.de] wrote:
> now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
> IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
> fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFXF_NOINET6 guarded
> attachments etc.
> introduce IFAFATTACH and IFAFDETAC
* Stefan Sperling [2014-07-15 12:35]:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:15:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > I'm slightly undecided on whether this should make this release or
> > not...
> In that situation, I usually decide that the risk won't outweigh
> the benefits of just waiting for a while.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:15:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I'm slightly undecided on whether this should make this release or
> not...
In that situation, I usually decide that the risk won't outweigh
the benefits of just waiting for a while. No change means nobody
can get hurt.
> kernel-r
* Stefan Sperling [2014-07-15 11:06]:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:48:47PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
> > IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
> > fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFXF_NOINET6 gu
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:48:47PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
> IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
> fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFXF_NOINET6 guarded
> attachments etc.
> introduce IFAFATTACH
