On 03/26/2012 10:17 PM, Igor Maravić wrote: > Ben, > do you want to resend this patches? Do they need to be modified in some way?
I spent all day chasing a nasty kernel bug, and probably will do so much of tomorrow as well. Hopefully I can find time to review your code in details soon. I am not sure I'm going to apply these though..from your description it sounds like you may be hiding real bugs. Can you provide an exact set of xorpsh (I assume) commands & config file(s) to make this bug happen? Thanks, Ben > 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 >>> -- 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
