>> >1/ removal of "control" argument from rip6_input and prepend control mbuf
>> >to chain AS IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. This makes rip6_input conform to the proto
>> >type for input. (I have not confirmed that the information in control
>> >is a valid mbuf but it is an mbuf pointer).
>> i don't see any "control" argument in rip6_input in kame tree, as well
>> as freebsd sys/netinet6/raw_ip6.c revision 1.12. which revision
>> are you looking at?
>Sorry, wrong function.. it was output....
ok,
>here is the fix
xx_output() has never been governed by protocol switch structure
and therefore ther are numerous variations we see in the tree.
i don't see your problem at all.
>> i can partially buy this, but for *BSD code sharing, i do need a
>> compromise here. permit us to use varargs.
>no.
are you the one who decide the rule here?
>it can be in the netbsd compatibility code.
>it's going away.
more #ifdef = more bug, and kame/freebsd gets left behind.
i really hate all the cosmetic differences *BSD has. freebsd has more
of it than anyone else.
>> no you can't remove "proto" argument from the argument list.
>> because of the way ipv6 extension header chain (and IPv4 AH/ESP
>> header) is designed, proto argument has to be passed around, otherwise
>> we can't know which protocol we are processing (think of raw ip header
>> processing, like rip_input).
>I din't say remove..
>I said ADD.
so are you proposing to compromise protocol-independent protosw
for the sake of IP? I guess your opinion is too IP centric...
itojun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
