On Wednesday 20 January 2016 23:29:21 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On 20/01/16 23:26, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > On 20/01/16 23:18, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> >>> this is changing the behaviour.
> >>> here now we get a router which potentially was elected during the
> >>> previous update_route() call while processing this very OGM. We are
> >>> still discussing if we want to do this or not, but this patch should be
> >>> just a style change, while this is not.
> >> 
> >> No, this is already in the code which is merged into master - we already
> >> acquire the updated router (see bat_v_ogm.c:547, function
> >> batadv_v_ogm_route_update()).
> > 
> > uhuhuh?! Actually you are right!
> > This means we currently send one OGM every time we make an election,
> > thus we might send multiple OGMs with the sequence numnber, despite this
> > is still under debate.
> > 
> > As far as I remember did not want to follow this approach at the moment?
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> I was missing this:
> 
> +       /* don't forward the same seqno twice on one interface */
> +       if (orig_ifinfo->last_seqno_forwarded == ntohl(ogm2->seqno))
> +               goto out;
> +
> 
> thanks Marek for pointing this out for me :)
> 
> it's all good then!

Ok cool! I guess we just need a conclusion where we put the conditions, then. 
:)

Cheers,
    Simon