On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Niels Baggesen wrote:
> Den 02-07-2012 20:22, Bill Fenner skrev:
>
>
>> A related question: isn't it safer to pretend to the compatibility
>> functions that a given interface with ifIndex > 16 bits (or 15 bits)
>> doesn't exist, rather than returning a potentially-a
Den 26-06-2012 23:33, Niels Baggesen skrev:
> Just a confirmation that the current 5.7-patches nightly on the
> problematic server now survives, returning
but please let's fix the compiler warnings:
> diff --git a/include/net-snmp/data_access/interface.h
> b/include/net-snmp/data_ac
> index 6305
Den 02-07-2012 20:22, Bill Fenner skrev:
> A related question: isn't it safer to pretend to the compatibility
> functions that a given interface with ifIndex > 16 bits (or 15 bits)
> doesn't exist, rather than returning a potentially-aliased value
> (e.g., pretend I have two interfaces on my syste
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing
>> for 16 bits of index values instead of the previous 8
>
> +1
>
>
>> Patch #2 is a bit more complex and creates new integer based
Den 20-06-2012 15:55, Wes Hardaker skrev:
> I started to look at that, but the problem is the third argument has
> various pointer types depending on the architecture in question. So I
> left it as individual routines.
>
> [I was also tempted to add a dummy 4th argument to the one architecture
> t
Dave Shield writes:
> I might question whether we need several copies of essentially the
> same code in different files, but that may well be the safest way
> forward - at least in the short term.
I started to look at that, but the problem is the third argument has
various pointer types dependi
On 19 June 2012 23:22, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Any reason for adding the extra api? I would say this is a private api
>> for snmpd, so we are free to change it
>
> I'm pretty sure the interface scanning APIs are heavily used in
> 3rd-party apps that extend the ifTable. There are zillions of MIBs t
Dave Shield writes:
> On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> - in the header file, mibII/interfaces.h, the declaration of
> Interface_Scan_NextInt has a first parameter of type 'Int'
> Shouldn't this be 'int' ?
(fixed in my copy, fyi)
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all replies to
Dave Shield writes:
> On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> It's a bit more complex than ideally I'd like at this stage,
> but in general I'm tempted to say yes.
> But there are a couple of points of concern:
>
> - in the various compatibility routines, there's a statement
>
>
Niels Baggesen writes:
> Den 19-06-2012 00:10, Wes Hardaker skrev:
>> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing for 16
>> bits of index values instead of the previous 8 (which wrapped >256 on
>> some systems).
>
> I would like to see this also masking the index to make sur
Den 19-06-2012 00:10, Wes Hardaker skrev:
> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing for 16
> bits of index values instead of the previous 8 (which wrapped >256 on
> some systems).
I would like to see this also masking the index to make sure it does not
overflow into the
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing
> for 16 bits of index values instead of the previous 8
+1
> Patch #2 is a bit more complex and creates new integer based index
> API for retrieving indexes and then ensure that they'r
12 matches
Mail list logo
