Hi, On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:29 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u...@kleine-koenig.org> wrote: > > On 11/29/19 8:50 PM, Hans Dedecker wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:11 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u...@kleine-koenig.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> When for example a /60 is assigned to a network the last 4 bits of the > >> ip6hint are unused. Emit a warning if any of these unused bits is set as > >> it indicates that someone didn't understand how the hint is used. (As I > >> did earlier today resulting in spending some time understanding the > >> code.) > > Patch applied with some minor tweaks > > (https://git.openwrt.org/?p=project/netifd.git;a=commit;h=e45b1408284c05984b38a910a1f0a07d6c761397); > > The updated warning message is fine. > > > I added your SoB as this was missing in the patch > > I wonder what the significance of the SoB is given that a) it's not > documented (at least in the netifd sources) and b) it seems to be ok to > "fake" someone else's SoB and c) there are several commits in the newer > history of netifd that don't have a SoB of either Author or Committer > (or both). For details why a SoB is required; see https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches#sign_your_work. If there're any commits in the netifd repo which don't have a SoB this must rather stay an exception than becoming a general rule.
Hans > > Best regards > Uwe > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
