On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> notification for free.
>
> ok?
Anyone?
>
> Index: netinet6/nd6.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
On 2015/09/30 10:37, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > notification for free.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Anyone?
There are two differences beside the userland notification -
1. rtdeletemsg()
On 30/09/15(Wed) 11:21, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/09/30 10:37, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > > notification for free.
> > >
> > > ok?
> >
> > Anyone?
>
> There are
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:37 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 25/09/15(Fri) 13:07, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
> > notification for free.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Anyone?
>
Since nobody has complained so far that arp is doing this,
I
This brings nd6_free() in line with arptfree() and adds a userland
notification for free.
ok?
Index: netinet6/nd6.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
retrieving revision 1.154
diff -u -p -r1.154 nd6.c
--- netinet6/nd6.c
On 23/01/15(Fri) 19:59, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
I am a fan of code unification.
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:22:47PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
It is indeed confusing. I tried to check every cases but in the end I
think that it might be better to decouple the removal from the routing
table and the rtfree(). Updated diff below does that.
I think the code is not
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
Comments, ok?
I think this version of the diff is correct
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:49:53AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
I am a fan of code unification.
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
When we notify the userland about
On 19/01/15(Mon) 09:35, Todd C. Miller wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:49:53 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
Since rtdeletemsg
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
Comments, ok?
Index: netinet/ip_icmp.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:49:53 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Instead of rerolling rtrequest1(RTM_DELETE...) code in various places,
simply use rtdeletemsg() which also notify userland that the route entry
is going away.
Since rtdeletemsg() may call rtfree() doesn't this mean that we can
end up
12 matches
Mail list logo