On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:03:07PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Now I still believe that such conversions should not be committed all at
> once because they might have undesirable side effects. So here's a
> first diff that I need for my rtalloc(9) rewrite. Are you ok with it?
Yes, and small
On 01/09/15(Tue) 00:23, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:47:51PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > The rtvalid() function checks if the route entry rt is still valid and
> > can be used. Cached entries that are no longer valid should be
> > released
> > by
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:47:51PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> The rtvalid() function checks if the route entry rt is still valid and
> can be used. Cached entries that are no longer valid should be released
> by calling rtfree().
I like it. As it does some checks and returns
Multiples routing entry issues, including my recent rtalloc(9) rewrite,
led me to believe that we need a simple way to check if a (cached) route
is still valid. So let me introduce rtvalid(9):
The rtvalid() function checks if the route entry rt is still valid and
can be used. Cached
