On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:37:17PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:22:16PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:05:23PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:56:29PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 10:04:14AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 11:28:36PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > These were identified by Coverity tool, no problems in practice. Still
> > > > > > > worth fixing to reduce noise in code checkers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LGTM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you run ipset xlate tests? These should not break those but just
> > > > > > in case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't, thanks for the reminder. Testsuite fails, but it does with
> > > > > HEAD as well. And so does the other testsuite ("make tests"), BtW. I'll
> > > > > investigate.
> > > >
> > > > Does this work after your testsuite updates? If so, push them out.
> > >
> > > Yes, it does. Should I push the testsuite updates, too? I'm uncertain
> > > about the s/vrrp/carp/, don't want to break anyone's test setup.
> >
> > I can see some distros still use vrrp en /etc/protocols, yes, I'm
> > ambivalent on this one.
>
> Maybe better just use a different protocol which didn't get "renamed"
> recently? It's for testing purposes only and the actual value doesn't
> matter much, right?
I agree that's fine for a test, yes.
