Ben, do you want to resend this patches? Do they need to be modified in some way? BR Igor
Током 24. март 2012. 08.27, Igor Maravić <[email protected]> је написао/ла: > I think that we don't need to handle the other case. > Problem that I experienced with my first patch was when I deleted > address for some vif. After I deleted it, system still was broadcast, > but config was not. Because of that it reported error. > With my second patch I bypassed that case and in some consecutive > function, config was set to be of the system_vifp->broadcast() value. > I think that should be the case for point-to-point links, but I don't > have necessary equipment to test that. > BR > Igor > > Током 23. март 2012. 19.53, Ben Greear <[email protected]> је > написао/ла: >> On 03/23/2012 11:48 AM, Igor Maravić wrote: >>> >>> It should, but I wanted to be in two different patches. I can squash >>> them together, in Monday if you like. >> >> >> Ok, 2 patches is fine..but... >> >> With regard to the second patch, it effectively removes >> the warning check if system is point-to-point but config >> is not. Do we need to handle that error case as well? >> >> Thanks, >> Ben >> >> >> -- >> Ben Greear <[email protected]> >> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com >> _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
