On 02/18/2018 07:29 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Why did we even do this to begin with?
That is a good question. ;-)
My assumption is that about 13 years ago uClibc did not provide the
IPPROTO_SCTP define and this is still a workaround for this problem.
I haven't checked the uClibc code.
Commit 60c1f0f64d23 is from 13. Oct 2006.
Hauke
>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Hauke Mehrtens <ha...@hauke-m.de> wrote:
>>
>> Remove this old patch which prevents showing the xfrm ports for SCTP
>>
>> This was added in commit 60c1f0f64d23 ("finally move buildroot-ng to trunk")
>> ---
>> .../network/utils/iproute2/patches/006-no_sctp.patch | 18
>> ------------------
>> 1 file changed, 18 deletions(-)
>> delete mode 100644 package/network/utils/iproute2/patches/006-no_sctp.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/package/network/utils/iproute2/patches/006-no_sctp.patch
>> b/package/network/utils/iproute2/patches/006-no_sctp.patch
>> deleted file mode 100644
>> index e23fbcd77d..0000000000
>> --- a/package/network/utils/iproute2/patches/006-no_sctp.patch
>> +++ /dev/null
>> @@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
>> ---- a/ip/ipxfrm.c
>> -+++ b/ip/ipxfrm.c
>> -@@ -454,7 +454,6 @@ void xfrm_selector_print(struct xfrm_sel
>> - switch (sel->proto) {
>> - case IPPROTO_TCP:
>> - case IPPROTO_UDP:
>> -- case IPPROTO_SCTP:
>> - case IPPROTO_DCCP:
>> - default: /* XXX */
>> - if (sel->sport_mask)
>> -@@ -1329,7 +1328,6 @@ static int xfrm_selector_upspec_parse(st
>> - switch (sel->proto) {
>> - case IPPROTO_TCP:
>> - case IPPROTO_UDP:
>> -- case IPPROTO_SCTP:
>> - case IPPROTO_DCCP:
>> - case IPPROTO_IP: /* to allow shared SA for different protocols */
>> - break;
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
