Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:41:03 -0500 From: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@netzuno.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@aciri.org>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>, <richw@webcom.com>, <julian@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BRIDGE breaks ARP? (more info) Message-ID: <HJEEKLMFLKEOKHOKNPBMOEBJCKAA.patrick@netzuno.com> In-Reply-To: <3A7F0B95.35887B1D@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Julian, > > Yep this seems to be fixing my problem here. I actually reimplemented > > Julian's patch on a test system here, but luckily did not get > confused by > > the order of the test (the first test should be if(do_bridge || > ...) rather > > than if (!do_bridge)). > > > > To Julian's defence, the use of a #ifdef BRIDGE in one place and $ifndef > > BRIDGE in the other place was confusing though. > > no, the problem is that I didn't test the 'obvious' case because it > was 'obvious' (and wrong) > > > > > Patrick. > > reimplememted? Yep I started from revision 1.64.2.5 of if_ether.c last night, and implemented what you tried to do in 1.64.2.6. I came up with the fix that you just sent to the list a few minutes ago, and it seems to be working better for me. As you said, the test in 1.64.2.6 is wrong, the one you sent earlier is the right one. The reason why I said that #ifndef BRIDGE was being confusing is that it really should have been a #ifdef BRIDGE, followed by a "if (!do_bridge)" (this is the second part of the patch). Whereas the first part of the patch is definitelly "if (do_bridge || ...)" as fixed in your post. Anyway, my test machine here seems happy now. I'll retest at some other places where I have been experiencing the same problem and I'll keep you updated if anything bad happens. Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?HJEEKLMFLKEOKHOKNPBMOEBJCKAA.patrick>