On 11/04/2017 22:47, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:25:33 +0100 > From: Roy Marples <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > | I didn't see any other RTM_* consumers in our tree. > > sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d are likely to benefit.
These need to be re-worked by someone who uses them. There is a bit of code which does <= RTM_CHANGE which will break at some point if we re-number it. I've left them alone. > There are also a whole bunch of processes that write to the routing socket, > then read it, to verify that the message they sent was received - most of > those are essentially one-off uses (do something and exit, like sbin/route) > but a couple (rarpd ldpd - more? didn't see any, but...) are daemons and > might possibly benefit. Fixed rarpd and ldpd. Roy
