On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:54:44 + Dave wrote:
DS> > Maybe netsnmp_inject_handler_before() ?
DS>
DS> I wondered about that.
DS> The main reason I didn't use that API is that it seemed a bit
DS> inefficient to search the handler chain when I already knew
DS> where I wanted the new handler to go!
W
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:34:45 + Dave wrote:
DS> It appears that in most cases, the MfD framework effectively splits
DS> each pass of the "traditional" SET handling model
Yes. The idea is that eventually the agent will use the baby step modes, and a
helper will be created to map back for the old
Hi,
I gather from the archives (and other sources) that this feat of daring has
been attempted before, but I cannot ascertain whether anyone has succeeded.
I perceive that there is now a renewed impetus to make net-snmp available
for QNX as with the latest release of OS (6.3.0) QSSL decided to pu
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:31:15 + Dave wrote:
DS> I noticed a log message on the CVS list yesterday,
DS> about documenting how to implement a non-caching version
DS> of a container-based MfD module.
DS> (I was a bit surprised to see that you'd applied this
DS> to the 5-2-patches line as wel
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 14:37, Robert Story wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:52:00 + Dave wrote:
> DS> Secondly, I've tweaked the stash-cache handler to automatically
> DS> inject the new stash-to-next handler into the chain if it
> DS> detects that this is needed. This involved manipulating the
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:52:00 + Dave wrote:
DS> Secondly, I've tweaked the stash-cache handler to automatically
DS> inject the new stash-to-next handler into the chain if it
DS> detects that this is needed. This involved manipulating the
DS> 'next' and 'prev' links directly, which feels:
DS>
Robert,
I noticed a log message on the CVS list yesterday,
about documenting how to implement a non-caching version
of a container-based MfD module.
(I was a bit surprised to see that you'd applied this
to the 5-2-patches line as well, since I thought that was
currently in pre-release freeze
Wes,
as you may have noticed, I've just submitted a couple of
patches to extend the behaviour of your "stash_cache" helper,
and allow it to work with stash-ignorant MIB modules.
But there are a couple of things I wanted to check with you
regarding the basic handler-chain architecture.
Firstly
Robert,
as you know, I've recently been looking at the MfD framework,
and hence the baby_steps helper that it relies on. And I've got
a couple of question - mostly just requests for clarification.
It appears that in most cases, the MfD framework effectively splits
each pass of the "traditiona
