Re: wm_intr may lead wm_start unexpectedly

[Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Manuel Bouyer 
<bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:51:06PM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>> >> Any comments?
>> >
>> > why not change in6_if_link_up() to use a delay >= 1 instead of 0 ?
>>
>> My change intends to make it clear whether a callout will be used
>> or not. I think it's error-prone.
>
> for me, it's clear that a timeout of 0 means immediately, and so a
> callout is not needed. I wouldn't expect a timeout of 0 to run through
> a callout. I would also expect a negative timeout to either be EINVAL or
> equivalent to 0.

Hmm, we have different feelings :-|

Anyway I don't so stick to my approach. I just want to fix the problem
and avoid further abuse of the function somehow.

So changing delay >= 1 and adding some caveat about its behavior
to nd6_dad_start would be okay.

  ozaki-r

>
> --
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
>      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
> --