On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:16:17PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> I'm about to kill rt_mask() and I believe it's not worth keeping this
> old backward compatibility.
>
> Anybody disagree? Ok?
OK bluhm@
>
> Index: netinet/if_ether.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/if_ether.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.190
> diff -u -p -r1.190 if_ether.c
> --- netinet/if_ether.c 20 Nov 2015 10:51:30 -0000 1.190
> +++ netinet/if_ether.c 30 Nov 2015 17:13:40 -0000
> @@ -161,14 +161,6 @@ arp_rtrequest(struct ifnet *ifp, int req
> switch (req) {
>
> case RTM_ADD:
> - /*
> - * XXX: If this is a manually added route to interface
> - * such as older version of routed or gated might provide,
> - * restore cloning bit.
> - */
> - if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) == 0 && rt_mask(rt) &&
> - satosin(rt_mask(rt))->sin_addr.s_addr != 0xffffffff)
> - rt->rt_flags |= RTF_CLONING;
> if (rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONING ||
> ((rt->rt_flags & (RTF_LLINFO | RTF_LOCAL)) && !la)) {
> /*
> Index: netinet6/nd6.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.172
> diff -u -p -r1.172 nd6.c
> --- netinet6/nd6.c 6 Nov 2015 11:20:56 -0000 1.172
> +++ netinet6/nd6.c 30 Nov 2015 17:13:40 -0000
> @@ -937,13 +937,6 @@ nd6_rtrequest(struct ifnet *ifp, int req
>
> switch (req) {
> case RTM_ADD:
> - /*
> - * There is no backward compatibility :)
> - *
> - * if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) == 0 &&
> - * SIN(rt_mask(rt))->sin_addr.s_addr != 0xffffffff)
> - * rt->rt_flags |= RTF_CLONING;
> - */
> if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONING) ||
> ((rt->rt_flags & (RTF_LLINFO | RTF_LOCAL)) && ln == NULL)) {
> if (ln != NULL)
