On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 12:13:11PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 04/12/14(Thu) 00:26, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:58:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > @@ -761,7 +754,17 @@ report:
> > > error = EDQUOT;
> > > g
On 04/12/14(Thu) 00:26, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:58:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > @@ -761,7 +754,17 @@ report:
> > error = EDQUOT;
> > goto flush;
> > }
> > - ifa = info
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:58:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> @@ -761,7 +754,17 @@ report:
> error = EDQUOT;
> goto flush;
> }
> - ifa = info.rti_ifa;
> + /*
> +
Hi Martin,
the tests were successful.
Your fix works.
Thanks for your efforts!
Florian
On 11/27/14 09:55, Florian Riehm wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> thank you for clarification and thank you for your patch.
>
> Your patch looks reasonably to me. I forgot RTAX_IFP and RTAX_IFA in my patch.
> After
Hi Martin,
thank you for clarification and thank you for your patch.
Your patch looks reasonably to me. I forgot RTAX_IFP and RTAX_IFA in my patch.
After a first trial, the fix works for me.
Today I will start nightly regression tests with it.
You will get the result tomorrow.
Regards
Florian
Hello Florian,
On 26/11/14(Wed) 06:56, Florian Riehm wrote:
> since OpenBSD 5.6 route change messages can change the interface of a route
> (rt_ifa) even if a message doesn't seem to require it because of a changed
> gateway or stuff like that.
> I would like to ask if it's a regression or if the
Hi tech,
since OpenBSD 5.6 route change messages can change the interface of a route
(rt_ifa) even if a message doesn't seem to require it because of a changed
gateway or stuff like that.
I would like to ask if it's a regression or if the new behavior is intended.
Example: (only for testing - it
