On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:10:21PM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> No, that was my point. i.e. don't avoid adding the route when given
> a /32 address just because class static routes are also present.
I think there might be a misunderstanding, so let me back up and try
to clarify. :)
Comput
Chris Cappuccio [ch...@nmedia.net] wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky [matt...@dempsky.org] wrote:
> >
> > void
> > -add_static_routes(int rdomain, struct option_data *static_routes)
> > +add_static_routes(int rdomain, struct in_addr addr, struct in_addr
> > addrmask,
> > +struct option_data *static_
Matthew Dempsky [matt...@dempsky.org] wrote:
>
> void
> -add_static_routes(int rdomain, struct option_data *static_routes)
> +add_static_routes(int rdomain, struct in_addr addr, struct in_addr addrmask,
> +struct option_data *static_routes)
> {
> struct in_addr dest, netmask
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:57:41AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:48:05PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> > Rfc 3442 is what I referred to.
>
> I don't think RFC 3442 discusses what to do with /32 IP address
> assignments though?
No, that was my point. i.e. don't av
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:48:05PM -0500, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> Rfc 3442 is what I referred to.
I don't think RFC 3442 discusses what to do with /32 IP address
assignments though?
Anyway, below is a revised diff that does the same direct-route magic
for all gateway IPs, not just the default
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:53:20 +0100
> From: Joerg Sonnenberger
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Sorry, but I disagree with LLVM here. It shouldn't complain about
> > static inline functions.
>
> Then mark them as unused, just like you would with a static
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Sorry, but I disagree with LLVM here. It shouldn't complain about
> static inline functions.
Then mark them as unused, just like you would with a static variable you
insist on keeping.
Joerg
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:55:00 -0500
> From: Brad Smith
>
> Put UREAD4 under #ifdef UHCI_DEBUG as it is only used by a function
> for debugging which is also under UHCI_DEBUG.
>
> uhci.c:256:1: error: unused function 'UREAD4' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
>
> OK?
Sorry, but I disagree with LLV
