On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Niels Baggesen ni...@baggesen.net 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
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 system:
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
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net 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
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
that
Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk 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
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net 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
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
Niels Baggesen n...@users.sourceforge.net 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
Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk writes:
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net 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
Dave Shield d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk writes:
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net 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
On 19 June 2012 23:22, Wes Hardaker harda...@users.sourceforge.net 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.
As discussed today over IRC, here's 2 patches for consideration in
inclusion for the 5.[56].* upcoming releases.
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).
Patch #2 is a bit more
13 matches
Mail list logo
