I'm about to kill rt_mask() and I believe it's not worth keeping this
old backward compatibility.
Anybody disagree? Ok?
Index: netinet/if_ether.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/if_ether.c,v
retrieving revision 1.190
diff -u -p -r1.190 if_ether.c
--- netinet/if_ether.c 20 Nov 2015 10:51:30 -0000 1.190
+++ netinet/if_ether.c 30 Nov 2015 17:13:40 -0000
@@ -161,14 +161,6 @@ arp_rtrequest(struct ifnet *ifp, int req
switch (req) {
case RTM_ADD:
- /*
- * XXX: If this is a manually added route to interface
- * such as older version of routed or gated might provide,
- * restore cloning bit.
- */
- if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) == 0 && rt_mask(rt) &&
- satosin(rt_mask(rt))->sin_addr.s_addr != 0xffffffff)
- rt->rt_flags |= RTF_CLONING;
if (rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONING ||
((rt->rt_flags & (RTF_LLINFO | RTF_LOCAL)) && !la)) {
/*
Index: netinet6/nd6.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/nd6.c,v
retrieving revision 1.172
diff -u -p -r1.172 nd6.c
--- netinet6/nd6.c 6 Nov 2015 11:20:56 -0000 1.172
+++ netinet6/nd6.c 30 Nov 2015 17:13:40 -0000
@@ -937,13 +937,6 @@ nd6_rtrequest(struct ifnet *ifp, int req
switch (req) {
case RTM_ADD:
- /*
- * There is no backward compatibility :)
- *
- * if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) == 0 &&
- * SIN(rt_mask(rt))->sin_addr.s_addr != 0xffffffff)
- * rt->rt_flags |= RTF_CLONING;
- */
if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONING) ||
((rt->rt_flags & (RTF_LLINFO | RTF_LOCAL)) && ln == NULL)) {
if (ln != NULL)
