> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:52:44 +0200
> From: Alexander Bluhm
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:09:32 +
> > > From: Klemens Nanni
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > > > M_TEMP s
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:09:32 +
> > From: Klemens Nanni
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > > M_TEMP seems unreasonable for interface groups data allocations.
> >
> > After claudio
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:09:32AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > M_TEMP seems unreasonable for interface groups data allocations.
>
> After claudio pointed out the wrong type, I thought of the same name,
> no other malloc(9) ty
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:09:32 +
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > M_TEMP seems unreasonable for interface groups data allocations.
>
> After claudio pointed out the wrong type, I thought of the same name,
> no other malloc(9)
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:09:32AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > M_TEMP seems unreasonable for interface groups data allocations.
>
> After claudio pointed out the wrong type, I thought of the same name,
> no other malloc(9) ty
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:37PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> M_TEMP seems unreasonable for interface groups data allocations.
After claudio pointed out the wrong type, I thought of the same name,
no other malloc(9) type fits.
FWIW OK kn, but please wait for other to chime in.
>
> Don't
