[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On 15
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:02:18 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT As you can see on the tracker I've had a look at this patch. I stopped
TT however because I'm not convinced that the introduction of the new flag
TT NETSNMP_CACHE_AUTO_SYNCHRONIZED is justified.
TT
TT I added some more explanation now why it's
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:10:01 -0800 Stephen wrote:
SH The netlink one is a bit problematic, in that it unconditionally replaces
the
SH old code, and we need to support older systems which might not have
netlink.
SH Is there some header/constant we can check for that will indicate whether
or
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:13:25 -0400
Robert Story rst...@freesnmp.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:10:01 -0800 Stephen wrote:
SH The netlink one is a bit problematic, in that it unconditionally
replaces the
SH old code, and we need to support older systems which might not have
netlink.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:25:51 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT I think the concept you are talking about for the cache is ok, but I'm not
TT sure that auto-sychronized is the right name. It's more of a keep-alive,
isn't
TT it? simply bumping the expiration time when the cache is used?
TT
TT Correct. The
On 03/16/2011 07:49 PM, Robert Story wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:25:51 +0200 Timo wrote:
TT I think the concept you are talking about for the cache is ok, but I'm
not
TT sure that auto-sychronized is the right name. It's more of a
keep-alive, isn't
TT it? simply bumping the expiration
