On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:54:23AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 23/01/17(Mon) 01:18, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > [...]
> > Last bit for now. This is changing the reporting madness. It moves it in
> > its own function which is called after the big switch statement.
> > If you hit a bad error in
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:56:02PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:18:05AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > Last bit for now. This is changing the reporting madness. It moves it in
> > its own function which is called after the big switch statement.
> > If you hit a bad er
On 23/01/17(Mon) 01:18, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> [...]
> Last bit for now. This is changing the reporting madness. It moves it in
> its own function which is called after the big switch statement.
> If you hit a bad error in the switch the code should eiter goto fail or
> flush.
> The new function
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:18:05AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Last bit for now. This is changing the reporting madness. It moves it in
> its own function which is called after the big switch statement.
> If you hit a bad error in the switch the code should eiter goto fail or
> flush.
> The new
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 07:31:20AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Next piece of the puzzle. Cleanup the error handling a bit.
> If the route message is not valid (syntactically or also because it
> references bad things) fail without broadcasting this message to all
> listeners. So make sure that un
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 01:28:02AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:51:52AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > I sent this diff out some time ago and would really like to get this in.
> > This is one step on makeing rtsock.c less of a hornets nest.
> > This reduces the side eff
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 07:31:20AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 01:28:02AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:51:52AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > I sent this diff out some time ago and would really like to get this in.
> > > This is one step on
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 01:28:02AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:51:52AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > I sent this diff out some time ago and would really like to get this in.
> > This is one step on makeing rtsock.c less of a hornets nest.
> > This reduces the side eff
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:51:52AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> I sent this diff out some time ago and would really like to get this in.
> This is one step on makeing rtsock.c less of a hornets nest.
> This reduces the side effects in route_output and simplifies some other
> bits as well. For exam
I sent this diff out some time ago and would really like to get this in.
This is one step on makeing rtsock.c less of a hornets nest.
This reduces the side effects in route_output and simplifies some other
bits as well. For example route_input is less variadic and simpler.
Anyone couragous enough
10 matches
Mail list logo