On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:51:06PM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote: >>> >> Any comments? >>> > >>> > why not change in6_if_link_up() to use a delay >= 1 instead of 0 ? >>> >>> My change intends to make it clear whether a callout will be used >>> or not. I think it's error-prone. >> >> for me, it's clear that a timeout of 0 means immediately, and so a >> callout is not needed. I wouldn't expect a timeout of 0 to run through >> a callout. I would also expect a negative timeout to either be EINVAL or >> equivalent to 0. > > Hmm, we have different feelings :-| > > Anyway I don't so stick to my approach. I just want to fix the problem > and avoid further abuse of the function somehow. > > So changing delay >= 1 and adding some caveat about its behavior > to nd6_dad_start would be okay.
So the patch is here: http://netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/nd6_dad_start.diff Regards, ozaki-r > > ozaki-r > >> >> -- >> Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> >> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference >> --
