Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:18:33 +0100 From: Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sppp patch's Message-ID: <20021121221833.A70987@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <3DDD1D67.4050905@cronyx.ru>; from rik@cronyx.ru on Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:52:39PM %2B0300 References: <000901c1134b$827a69a0$48b5ce90@crox> <3BDABF7B.4060808@cronyx.ru> <3BE24EE4.2020506@cronyx.ru> <20011102192916.A43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BE3ED17.3060603@cronyx.ru> <20011231165245.B73897@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3DDD1D67.4050905@cronyx.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Roman Kurakin wrote: > Sppp still have a quantity of bugs. Here is one of them: > > --- if_spppsubr.c.orig Wed Oct 16 18:41:16 2002 > +++ if_spppsubr.c Thu Nov 21 20:13:16 2002 > @@ -1672,12 +1672,12 @@ > case STATE_ACK_SENT: > break; > case STATE_CLOSING: > - sppp_cp_change_state(cp, sp, STATE_CLOSED); > (cp->tlf)(sp); > + sppp_cp_change_state(cp, sp, STATE_CLOSED); > break; [...] > In all cases we have the same problem: at first we should call tlf > that will changes state and then we should set proper state. If we > set some state and then call tlf we will get wrong final state. Can you please explain more, e. g. with a ifconfig debug trace? The RFC doesn't mandate a particular order between the actions and the actual state change, and IIRC (without digging down into the code right now), reverting the order has other unwanted side effects. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) 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?20021121221833.A70987>