Hello Yasuoka,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:55:20AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me add another fix of previous.
>
> ok?
OK. thanks for taking care of that. I've entirely missed 1 vs. -1 return
value, when reviewing your change.
regards
sashan
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:54:48 +0200
Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:22:48AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> Previous commit has a wrong part..
>>
>> ok?
>>
>> Fix previous commit which referred wrong address.
>
> would it make sense to move the block, you've in
Hello Yasuoka,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:22:48AM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Previous commit has a wrong part..
>
> ok?
>
> Fix previous commit which referred wrong address.
would it make sense to move the block, you've introduced earler
under the !PF_AZERO() branch just
Hi,
Let me add another fix of previous.
ok?
Fix previous commit which referred wrong address and returned wrong
value.
Index: sys/net/pf_lb.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf_lb.c,v
retrieving revision 1.66
diff -u -p -r1.66 pf_lb
Hi,
Previous commit has a wrong part..
ok?
Fix previous commit which referred wrong address.
Index: sys/net/pf_lb.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf_lb.c,v
retrieving revision 1.65
diff -u -p -r1.65 pf_lb.c
--- sys/net/pf_lb.c
Hello Yasuoka,
>
> Yes.
>
> Let me simplify the block for "least-states".
>
thanks for your explanation. It helped me to understand the code.
I'm OK with your fix.
thanks and
regards
sashan
Hi,
Thank you for your review.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:25:42 +0200
Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
>> - interface is not selected properly if selected table entry specifies
>> an interface.
>
> to be honest I don't quite understand what's going on here.
> can you share some details of confi
Hello Yasuoka,
> - interface is not selected properly if selected table entry specifies
> an interface.
to be honest I don't quite understand what's going on here.
can you share some details of configuration/scenario, which
triggers the bug your diff is fixing?
the part of y
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 13:23, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>
> The diff fixes 2 problems of "least-states":
>
> - states whose address is selected by sticky-address is not counted
> for the number of states.
> - interface is not selected properly if selected table entry specifies
> an interface.
>
Hi,
The diff fixes 2 problems of "least-states":
- states whose address is selected by sticky-address is not counted
for the number of states.
- interface is not selected properly if selected table entry specifies
an interface.
ok?
Increase state counter for least-states when the address is
10 matches
Mail list logo