From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lindner_marek@yahoo.de>
From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:34:15 +0200
References: <1334402127-5211-1-git-send-email-ordex@autistici.org>
	<20120414112915.GA24739@ritirata.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120414112915.GA24739@ritirata.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201204141334.16051.lindner_marek@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 0/2] Fixes reported by Al Viro
Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n.lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/options/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
	<mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.open-mesh.org/pipermail/b.a.t.m.a.n>
List-Post: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
	<mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=subscribe>
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking <b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 13:29:15 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>   On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:15:25PM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > The following two patches fix the two issues found by Al Viro and
> > reported in his email.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Patch 1) simply convert the tt_crc field in the bat_priv structure from
> > atomic_t to uint16_t. Actually there is no reason to declare it as
> > atomic_t.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Patch 2) fixes a little bug we have when sending a tt_request message:
> > now we don't convert the tt_crc that we are sending within the request
> > to network order. OTOH we convert this field from NO to HO on the
> > receiver side.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Therefore, nodes on the path of the request, which have HO different from
> > NO, will fail to reply to the request and will forward it towards the
> > final destination.
> 
> I think David'd want to see this fix in the next pull request or
> so...should we commit these patches to next directly?

Probably. The second patch could even go to stable, right ?

Cheers,
Marek