On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Roy Marples <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 13:14:39 Ryota Ozaki wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here are new patches: >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/separate-nexthop-caches-v2.diff >> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/separate-nexthop-caches-v2-diff.diff >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Comment out osbolete RTF_* and RTM_* definitions >> - Tweak some userland codes for the change >> - Restore checks of connected (cloning) routes in nd6_is_addr_neighbor >> - Restore the original behavior on removing ARP/NDP entries for >> IP addresses of interface itself >> - Remove remaining use of RTF_LLINFO in the kernel >> - I think we can remove it safely >> >> Thanks, >> ozaki-r > > /* > * Even if the address matches none of our addresses, it might match > * a cloning route or be in the neighbor cache. > */ > > > So we need to change this comment now in nd6_is_addr_neighbor() > s/cloning/connected
Sure. I'll fix it. > > I think the last question is which is the more expensive lookup? A connected > route or on the neighbour cache? I suspect the former because it's at least a > malloc/free whereas the latter is a lookup - so would it make more sense to > swap the tests around so we assume a positive match? You're right. I'll do so. > > For usr.bin/netstat/route.c, you drop the L flag usage, but not dropped it > from > the man page or options. Is this on purpose? No, I'll drop it. I supposed to modify man pages after all changes get agreement. I'm revising man pages now. > > I've not had time to check it other than a cursory glance, but more - than + > is always good! > > One parting comment, one of style (my preference) > -#define RTF_CLONED 0x2000 /* this is a cloned route */ > +/* #define RTF_CLONED 0x2000 this is a cloned route */ > > Might be better as this > -#define RTF_CLONED 0x2000 /* this is a cloned route */ > +//#define RTF_CLONED 0x2000 /* this is a cloned route */ > > So that the original comment markings are preserved. You have other mods like > this in your patch, I just highlighted this one as it's an easy diff. > I dunno how others feel about that, maybe just me and you can ignore it. Okay, if nobody complains, I'll change so. > > Keep up the good work! Thanks :) So patches are updated: http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/separate-nexthop-caches-v3.diff http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/separate-nexthop-caches-v3-diff.diff Thanks, ozaki-r
