Hi,
>From my understanding of SNMP RFCs when a user status in usmUserTable is
>different from active then no management operations like gets/sets are allowed
>on behalf of this user. However what I've noticed in net-snmp 5.3.1 and
>5.4.rc1 that although user status is for example not in service
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> +1 (especially since the Python modules haven't been shipped before)
+1 from me as well.
Go ahead and apply it Joe (I know it hasn't been 24 hours).
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
G. S. Marzot wrote:
> Attached is a patch which addresses a few memory leak issues in the Python
> Net-SNMP interface.
>
> The proposal is that these fixes be accepted prior to release.
+1 (especially since the Python modules haven't been shipped before)
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.ander
Attached is a patch which addresses a few memory leak issues in the Python
Net-SNMP interface.
prior to the patch session creation leaked the session pointer...also within the
session, memory was allocated which was not freed by snmp_close()...both of
these issues were addressed as confirmed by va
-Coders,
testing 5.4.rc1 on the SF Compile Farm went pretty well, *except* for
x86-freebsd1 (FreeBSD 5.4). "make test" fails miserably on a large
number of tests. The underlying cause seems to be that even a simple
agent/snmpd -H
will make the agent hang badly. Running under gdb shows:
(gdb)
Dave Shield wrote:
On 02/11/06, Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can somebody explain to me why, in close_agentx_session(), part of the
session infrastructure is taken down first
(unregister_XXX_by_session()), and _then_ the requests are cleaned up,
rather than the other way round?
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:07:38 -0800 Wes wrote:
WH> Anyway, enclosed is the patch. It's a more major change than I'd
WH> ideally like for a last minute change, but it was something we agreed
WH> upon and thus I should at least offer it. I'm voting +1, but barely.
I agree. But it does fix a build i
Dave Shield wrote:
> On 02/11/06, Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Can somebody explain to me why, in close_agentx_session(), part of the
>> session infrastructure is taken down first
>> (unregister_XXX_by_session()), and _then_ the requests are cleaned up,
>> rather than the other w
