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?


Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli