> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:17:52 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
TA> It can't do any
TA> harm on other platforms than Solaris (since it lives in kernel_sunos5.c)
TA> and looks like a highly important fix for Solaris users monitoring their
TA> interfaces. We've had several compla
Yes. I'm testing Solaris 8 right now.
>What solaris versions have you tested with?
>Bruce, can you check the patch on the myriad of versions you have,
especially
>the older ones, and see if everything still works?
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is
addre
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:31:02 +0200 Niels wrote:
NB> Correct. The function has all the time been documented as returning zero
NB> for ok. At some point in time somebody has used it with incorrect checks
NB> for ok returns. I have been over all uses and the complete code to make
NB> sure all agrees o
>Correct. The function has all the time been documented as returning zero
>for ok. At some point in time somebody has used it with incorrect checks
>for ok returns. I have been over all uses and the complete code to make
>sure all agrees on the head documentation. To make things even more
>complica
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:17:52PM -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> I was inclined to agree until I took a look at the code in question. We've
> gone from setting an error for (rc < 0), to (rc == 0) and now (rc != 0). This
> looks like either people don't know what they are doing, or the error
> condit
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:54:34 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> It can't do any
TA> harm on other platforms than Solaris (since it lives in kernel_sunos5.c)
TA> and looks like a highly important fix for Solaris users monitoring their
TA> interfaces. We've had several complaints in the past on the lists.
>It can't do any harm on other platforms than Solaris (since it lives in
kernel_sunos5.c)
>and looks like a highly important fix for Solaris users monitoring their
>interfaces. We've had several complaints in the past on the lists.
>(Anyone still listening? We could benefit from your testing!)
Niels Baggesen wrote:
The problem is that getKstatInt isn't consistent in selecting return
values, and some places expects nonzero to be failure (as documented),
and others expect zero to be failure. And the function isn't even
consistent internally.
The problems stems from a patch that Wes appl
