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!

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli