In message <20060221205935.6F1D756534@rebar.astron.com>,
Christos Zoulas writes:

[...]

>| I once intended to unify the ifdefs for IPsec in much the way
>| FreeBSD has done, so that what's now two sets of tests would (almost)
>| all become:
>| 
>| 	#if defined(IPSEC) || defined(FAST_IPSEC)
>| 		... code which calls common API into whichever IPsec
>| 		was configured at config-time
>| 	#endif
>| 
>| that approach becomes much more feasible, now that we have a sane,
>| unified struct in_pcbhdr.  All the pointer-chasing from pcb to socket,
>| and then (three functions later) back again, in all those
>| 
>| 	switch (so->so_proto->pr_domain->dom_family) {
>
>Yes, this is what rui is working on (merging inpcb/in6pcb).

I'm not familiar with that.


>| fragmets, to discriminate IPv4 PCBs from IPv6 6to4(?)[*] PCBs, really
>| should go away, and (now that pcbhdr lets us disambiguate IPv6 traffic
>| from IPv4), we should go back to passing PCBs around, instead of
>| passing sockets, and following pointers as in the line I quote above.
>| 
>| I'd welcome constructive comments on that idea.
>| 
>| [*] That is, the code with the somewhat-cryptic comment:
>| 
>|  * NOTE: IPv6 mapped adddress concern is implemented here.
>| 
>| which is, I beleive, what broke last time I tried this particular code
>| reorg.
>
>We all agree, so this change should not be controversial.

Exactly what is rui doing?  If I rescuscitated and reapplied the patch
which (not grokking the full import of that cryptic comment) I
committed and (in hindsight) Itojun quite correctly backed out,
how far does that get us along the way? 

Or to turn that around: what else is is in-progress that that'd break?