[What I'm pointing out below looks like a mistake regardless of the
variables in scope.]
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Henning Brauer
<hb-openbsdt...@ml.bsws.de> wrote:
> * Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> [2014-10-22 01:11]:
>> Stuart Henderson [st...@openbsd.org] wrote:
>> > Any comments on the diff in this?
>> >
>> > > +#ifdef INET6
>> > > + sc->sc_sppp.pp_if.if_xflags &= ~IFXF_NOINET6;
>> > > +#endif
>> Aside from what Stefan said, isn't this flag going to be removed
>> in favor of a flag that explicitly enables INET6 for interfaces?
>
> remove yes, no need for a new one.
>
> Index: sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.287
> diff -u -p -r1.287 ifconfig.c
> --- sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c 12 Jul 2014 19:58:17 -0000 1.287
> +++ sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.c 3 Oct 2014 12:58:22 -0000
> @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ void setiflladdr(const char *, int);
[...]
> void
> +addaf(const char *vname, int value)
> +{
^ *v*name
> + struct if_afreq ifar;
> +
> + strlcpy(ifar.ifar_name, name, sizeof(ifar.ifar_name));
^ name
> + ifar.ifar_af = value;
> + if (ioctl(s, SIOCIFAFATTACH, (caddr_t)&ifar) < 0)
> + warn("SIOCIFAFATTACH");
> +}
> +
> +void
> removeaf(const char *vname, int value)
> {
^ *v*name
> - switch (value) {
> -#ifdef INET6
> - case AF_INET6:
> - setifxflags(vname, IFXF_NOINET6);
> - setifxflags(vname, -IFXF_AUTOCONF6);
> - break;
> -#endif
> - default:
> - errx(1, "removeaf not implemented for this AF");
> - }
> + struct if_afreq ifar;
> +
> + strlcpy(ifar.ifar_name, name, sizeof(ifar.ifar_name));
^ name
> + ifar.ifar_af = value;
> + if (ioctl(s, SIOCIFAFDETACH, (caddr_t)&ifar) < 0)
> + warn("SIOCIFAFDETACH");
> }
