|
Adresses problems desciribed in
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-bugs/2015-April/004891.html
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/2015-April/004766.html
The original patch also suggested the following fix.
However we need more information to be able to understand if
this is correct or not, and it does not have priority at the moment
for us to investigate.
@@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ next_node(D, {tree, Tree, {table_entry, _MibName}},
"~n RevOidSoFar: ~p"
"~n MibView: ~p", [size(Tree), Oid, RevOidSoFar, MibView]),
OidSoFar = lists:reverse(RevOidSoFar),
- case snmpa_acm:is_definitely_not_in_mib_view(OidSoFar, MibView) of
+ case snmpa_acm:is_definitely_not_in_mib_view(OidSoFar ++ Oid, MibView) of
true ->
?vdebug("next_node(tree,table_entry) -> not in mib view",[]),
false;
|
