On 10/22/2012 04:32 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 10/22/2012 03:59 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
Oops. But then I am not sure how to do it. The new code changes "everything."
If you want, I can go back and remove it ... make yet-another-patch on top of the one one to way to the list which removes interface= from the conf-file and then submit a third patch which puts it back in. I think we're crossing wires. This is what patches I think should be sent:
1) a patch to add --interface to the commandline
2) a patch to switch from using the "long commandline" to using a conf file (which will still put the equivalent of --interface=xxx into the conf file).
Isn't that what you already have? Ah, I just saw that you've already sent the patch, and it *wasn't* on top of the patch that adds --interface. An alternate path would be to have the "switch to conf file" patch first (but *not* adding the --interface option), then remaking that patch to only add to the conf file (ie to be applied *after* this patch). Either way, we need to have
On 10/22/2012 04:25 PM, Laine Stump wrote: them in two separate patches.
That first patch was crap and I wish I could have retracted the message after I sent it. "v2" of the patch is "on the way" if not already posted. This patch was created by: 1. checkout master; pull, checkout -b gc-cf-4 master 2. Using "patch -p1", apply my patch (no interface=) for bridge_driver.[ch], and networkxml2argvtest.c 3. Edit bridge_driver.c to fixup the things that did no go on clean. 4. create tarball from another tree for the *argv testfiles and untar onto gc-cf-4 5. commit and the format patch 6. create another branch from master and apply the created patch; fixup a couple end-of-line whitespace problem; reapply ... this time clean. 7 send-email Well, one good thing is that I am starting to get the hang of git ;) This version of the patch did not screw things up in bridge_driver.c like the last one did. Yes, this version does not include the "interface=" code which involves a couple of lines in bridge_driver.c plus an update to each of the argv test files. A patch adding "interface=" to the previous patch will be submitted shortly. I would appreciate an explanation why there is reluctance to adding "interface=". Yes, there were problems a while ago if it was used, but there is now a definite problem if it is not specified and dnsmasq =>2.61. Without "interface=", the bind-interfaces does not work and v4 and/or v6 packets can be mis-routed by the kernel when there are multiple instances of dnsmasq running. Dnsmasq listens to 0.0.0.0:67/68 for v4 and :::547 for v6. Without good packet routing results are unpredictable. Gene