On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:17 PM Alexander Zubkov <gr...@qrator.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:06 PM Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:40:30AM +0100, Alexander Zubkov wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > A quick try to fix the problem. But I'm not sure in complete correctness >> > though. >> >> Hi >> >> That looks more-or-less OK, will merge. >> >> > - ipa_equal(x->addr, y->addr); >> > + ipa_equal(x->addr, y->addr) && >> > + ipa_equal(x->addr2, y->addr2); >> >> I think undefined addr2 should work like wildcard, i.e. the condition >> should be: >> >> > Maybe. I do not know well how this lock works. If different lock keys can > affect another. And in this case it is probably better to fix "local" role > for that second address and reflect it in its name. > I think even better to call this wildcard_addr, for example. So if something else needs this wildcard feature, it is clear which addr to use in the lock object. > > >> ipa_equal(x->addr, y->addr) && >> (ipa_zero(x->addr2) || ipa_zero(y->addr2) || ipa_equal(x->addr2, >> y->addr2)); >> >> (Undefined local ip will be resolved to some ip and may collide with >> defined ones.) >> >> -- >> Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo >> >> Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) >> OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) >> "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so." >> >
