Guys;
I have to agree with Terry that the fixes for netns
should be committed, and furthermore they should be
MFC (using his first patch perhaps). It's a nightmare
to try to rescue anything from the Attic, at least it
would be nice to have it in better shape before
killing it.
The flame fest on
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:03:49AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
/sys/netns/.
You seem to have posted
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Here are two patches. The first fixes missing pieces in /sys/conf/files
and /sys/conf/options, the second fixes all the files that need it in
/sys/netns/.
You seem to have posted the wrong patch.
This is against 4.x, not -current, and this is
David O'Brien wrote:
Here is a single patch vs. 5.x.
I believe this makes it actually work.
^
huh? This is untested?
Will you accept interoperability between two FreeBSD boxes? A
FreeBSD box and a NetBSD box?
Please apply this to the code, even if you are intent on
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
For heaven's sake! *It has only been 3 days* since the code
was threatened! What do you expect *in 3 days*!?!
The code has been broken for 7 years. You've
had ample time to fix and *maintain* this code.
Points moot, anyway.
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
For heaven's sake! *It has only been 3 days* since the code
was threatened! What do you expect *in 3 days*!?!
The code has been broken for 7 years. You've
had ample time to fix and *maintain* this code.
=?iso-8859-1?q?Pedro=20F.=20Giffuni?= wrote:
Guys;
I have to agree with Terry that the fixes for netns
should be committed, and furthermore they should be
MFC (using his first patch perhaps). It's a nightmare
to try to rescue anything from the Attic, at least it
would be nice to have it in
