On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 23/11/16(Wed) 06:00, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > After the last IPSEC-related refactoring this goto no longer make sense.
> > >
> > > ok?
> >
> > Are you shure
On 23/11/16(Wed) 06:00, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > After the last IPSEC-related refactoring this goto no longer make sense.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Are you shure? I'm not convinced that for an INADDR_BROADCAST destination
> the code would d
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> After the last IPSEC-related refactoring this goto no longer make sense.
>
> ok?
Are you shure? I'm not convinced that for an INADDR_BROADCAST destination
the code would do the same. I think it is fine but I can't prove it.
> In
After the last IPSEC-related refactoring this goto no longer make sense.
ok?
Index: netinet/ip_output.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/ip_output.c,v
retrieving revision 1.330
diff -u -p -r1.330 ip_output.c
--- netinet/ip_output.c