On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I'm trying to access enums for varbinds and I end up with error saying
> "uninitialized value in hash element"
>
> Code:
> @foreach $noti notifications@
> @foreach $varb varbinds@
> @if $varb.enums@
> (
Here's a horrible thing to
I'm trying to access enums for varbinds and I end up with error saying
"uninitialized value in hash element"
Code:
@foreach $noti notifications@
@foreach $varb varbinds@
@if $varb.enums@
(
@foreach $vare $varv enum@
varbing-enum$varv $vare
@end@
)
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:46:56 +0100
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:46:51 -0500
> > Robert Story wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:37:17 -0800 Stephen wrote:
> > > SH> These patches fix the problems with wal
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:46:51 -0500
> Robert Story wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:37:17 -0800 Stephen wrote:
> > SH> These patches fix the problems with walking the forwarding mib when a
> > SH> router has full BGP feed.
> >
> > Exce
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:46:51 -0500
Robert Story wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:37:17 -0800 Stephen wrote:
> SH> These patches fix the problems with walking the forwarding mib when a
> SH> router has full BGP feed.
>
> Excellent! I'm glad someone finally had the time to fix this.
>
> The first
2011/3/4 Wes Hardaker
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:54:10 +0200, Timo Teräs
> said:
>
> TT> What's the usual time frame for getting patches reviewed and committed?
> TT> Could someone take a look at this?
>
> It's actually on my todo list to go review the patches. They're always
> reviewed be
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:46:51 -0500
Robert Story wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:37:17 -0800 Stephen wrote:
> SH> These patches fix the problems with walking the forwarding mib when a
> SH> router has full BGP feed.
>
> Excellent! I'm glad someone finally had the time to fix this.
>
> The first
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 10 March 2011 20:17, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > You might have missed this patch, reporting a bug in 5.5, 5.6 and trunk:
> >
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=312694&aid=3203806&group_id=12694
> .
>
>
> Correct - I hadn't
Dave Shield wrote:
> The fix (attached) is clearly trivial, and I'd like to include this
> in 5.5.1 (although it's not strictly a show-stopper).
+1
Thomas
--
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:20:43 + Dave wrote:
DS> It doesn't really seem worth spinning another RC release
DS> just for these two changes. How would people feel about
DS> me going straight to the final 5.5.1 release?
fine with me.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:20:36 + Dave wrote:
DS> Unfortunately, our code (in snmplib/snmp-tc.c:date_n_time())
DS> treats them as equivalent, and hence gets the wrong answer
DS> when using the tm_gmtoff form.
DS>
DS> The fix (attached) is clearly trivial, and I'd like to include this
DS> in 5.5.1
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:37:17 -0800 Stephen wrote:
SH> These patches fix the problems with walking the forwarding mib when a
SH> router has full BGP feed.
Excellent! I'm glad someone finally had the time to fix this.
The first 3 patches are no-brainers. I'll apply them shortly.
The netlink one is
On 11 March 2011 05:16, sujata patra wrote:
> I have an unsigned long long data , which need to be assigned to counter64.
> I can assign that using high part and low part.
That's the correct approach, yes.
> The problem is size, as well as endian ness. While conversion do I have to
> check ENDI
13 matches
Mail list logo
