Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

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

Re: pf: route-to least-states

> 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.