[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: getifaddrs(3) returns 2 AF_LINK instances for the same interface
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 01:39:11PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:54:13PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:20:34PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> > > > I have checked and the last change of note was over 7 years ago.
> > > > So are you suggesting that getifaddrs(3) should ignore the _IFINFO
> > > > message or somehow merge it into the _NEWADDR one - if it's present?
> > >
> > > Based on my recollections, above, my guess is that getifaddrs(3) should
> > > merge the messages.
> > Doesn't that break the interface for old libc with new kernel?
> Do you mean, does old getifaddrs(3) do the right thing with the messages
> in the new kernel interface? The messages are the same in form,
> but different in number, so I reckon it depends on an application's
> expectations more than anything else.
I mean if the answer is "getifaddrs need to change" to accomodate for
the kernel changes, that does change the visible result for older
programs, doesn't it? I don't know how many users (if at all) actually
care about AF_LINK, but it is something to keep in mind for this
Main Index |
Thread Index |