Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IPV6\s+RFC3542\s+compliance\s+\[PATCH\]\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IPV6\s+RFC3542\s+compliance\s+\[PATCH\]\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

21. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:05:21 +0900 (JST); Yes (or they should do so before your favorite distro start shipping with new constants). We can still keep old binaries if we renumber. This is important point. e.g. people, including myself, can ke; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00840.html (10,466 bytes)
22. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 00:40:28 -0700; kernels. But old binaries won't work with just that change (and making them work is independent of changing the numbers). For example, old binary: IPV6_RTHDR is value 5 it does: on=1; setsockopt(s,; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00841.html (10,814 bytes)
23. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:47:49 +0900 (JST); No, kernel should send 5, if application use old API, of course. --yoshfuji; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00842.html (10,791 bytes)
24. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:55:36 +0900 (JST); This can be implemented like this (based on codes from our repository): /* RFC2292bis */ if (np->rxopt.bits.rxhbh && opt->hop) { u8 *ptr = skb->nh.raw + opt->hop; put_cmsg(msg, SOL_IPV6, IPV6_HOPOPTS; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00843.html (10,554 bytes)
25. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:01:01 -0700; YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 06/07/2005 12:47:49 AM: Ok, but this gets back to my point. If the program source doesn't have #ifdefs like you suggested (for example, if it wa; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00844.html (10,010 bytes)
26. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:04:17 -0700; YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 06/07/2005 12:55:36 AM: 07 Jun Sure, it's easy to do. But the application that's using it has broken source, and nobody will know until after it; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00845.html (10,301 bytes)
27. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:14:23 +0900 (JST); It is okay, we can warn that "you use old API; please fix that!" or something like that. (like SO_BSDCOMPAT or, neigh.XXX.base_reachable_time sysctl.) No, I don't think so. Please do NOT break binary; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00846.html (10,783 bytes)
28. Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] (score: 1): Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:49:36 -0600; Below is a patch that adds a warning message for rfc2292-style use of socket options, and uses a different numeric value for options that have a different meaning in the rfc3542 API. It also, of cour; /archives/netdev/2005-06/msg00892.html (33,506 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 28
Page: [1] [2]