On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
I'll commit this soon if there is no objection. Thanks, ozaki-r > > Regards, > ozaki-r > >> >> ozaki-r >> >>> >>> -- >>> Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> >>> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference >>> --
