Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

To: Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost>, tech-net%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
From: Tyler Retzlaff <rtr%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:36:37 -0400

hey,

On 3/24/2015 7:47 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:

In article <20150324230053.AB04314A1D3%mail.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:

Tyler Retzlaff <rtr%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:

I think so too; the only reason we are not using sockaddr_storage for it
is because we allow sockaddr_un to be up to 253 characters long as an
extension to the spec. I kind of wished that sockaddr_storage was defined
to be 256 bytes instead of 128...

I have no particular objection to doing it this way, I just thoughtthere would be objection to changing the size of struct sockaddr_storagewhich is why I went with the new structure.

If it is better to increase the size of struct sockaddr_storage shoot mea preferred updated structure definition and I'll go with that.


christos


Thanks for looking.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
  - From: Christos Zoulas

References:
- patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
  - From: Tyler Retzlaff
- Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
  - From: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
- Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
  - From: Christos Zoulas

Prev by Date: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
Next by Date: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
Previous by Thread: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
Next by Thread: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index