From owner-freebsd-isdn Tue Apr 20 10:50:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Received: from peedub.muc.de (newpc.muc.ditec.de [194.120.126.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E696A1509C for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:50:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garyj@peedub.muc.de) Received: from peedub.muc.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peedub.muc.de (8.9.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA52420 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <199904201743.TAA52420@peedub.muc.de> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3.1 and 0.70 Reply-To: Gary Jennejohn In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Apr 1999 06:37:24 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:43:25 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn Sender: owner-freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Andreas Gaertner writes: >On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> I belive I may have introduced this in if_spppsubr.c with a leak from >> my hot-cell test lab here. It is belived to be harmless. > >i see - but how come the code from 0.70 used in 2.2.7 differs from the one >used in 3.1? > >regards and thanks again, > it's called progress ;-) --- Gary Jennejohn Home - garyj@muc.de Work - garyj@fkr.dec.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message