Subject: Re: SIOCSIFADDR
To: Atsushi Onoe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <email@example.com>
Date: 09/04/2002 11:05:48
>> Modified Files:
>> syssrc/sys/netinet: in.c
>> Log Message:
>> avoid SIOCSIFADDR if there's an IPv4 address already.
>> the comment doesn't match the behavior, it seems that the code assumed that
>> there's only one IPv4 address on an interface. sync w/kame
>I'm curious to know what is the intention of this change?
>Why not just fix the comment?
>Although SIOCSIFADDR is designed for single IPv4 address per interface,
>it would be halmless that give the driver additional chance.
>I don't think new code is wrong, but the change looks unnecessary for me.
additional SIOCSIFADDR will reset the interface, makes it unable to
communicate for certain period of time (for some interfaces).