From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Henriksson Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: support dotted-quad netmask notation. Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20071212115513.GA3394@scream.fatal.se> References: <20071204135818.GA24419@scream.fatal.se> <20071206115350.18e9204f@freepuppy.rosehill> <1197070894.5385.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1197220222.4392.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071211171406.57389dba@freepuppy.rosehill> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from 1-1-1-9a.ghn.gbg.bostream.se ([82.182.69.4]:38948 "EHLO scream.fatal.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778AbXLLMLk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:11:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071211171406.57389dba@freepuppy.rosehill> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:14:06PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:10:22 +0100 > Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > I think both previous patches where broken on big-endian platforms. > > Here's an updated patch again. I'm very sorry for the inconvenience! [...] > > + *val=0; > > + for (mask = ntohl(addr.data[0]); mask; mask <<= 1) > > + (*val)++; [...] > > applied > Just to make sure.... It looks on git.kernel.org like you applied the wrong patch. (Maybe you just haven't pushed out the latest changes there yet.) Please double-check that you actually applied the latest version (which is the one in the mail you replied "applied" to, important part quoted above). Additionally, there's still a couple of trivial patches pending in the "patches" branch of git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/pkg-iproute.git Please see the original thread[1], where Patrick McHarding had some concerns about one of the patches. It's exactly the same changes you made in commit 660818498d0f5a3f52c05355a3e82c23f670fcc1 [2] though, so I don't really see the problem. I have an additional patch[3] available, that makes MAX_ROUNDS configurable which Patrick requested. Please comment on the way forward there.... [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg44800.html [2]: Where the comment seems to be wrong about "Limit ip route flush...", since it's actually "ip neigh flush" that's being modified. [3]: I have a slightly updated patch, but it's basically the same as http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg45080.html Will send updated version if the patches it's based on goes in. -- Regards, Andreas Henriksson