Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Mar 24,  8:36pm, rtr%netbsd.org@localhost (Tyler Retzlaff) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

| 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 thought 
| there would be objection to changing the size of struct sockaddr_storage 
| which is why I went with the new structure.
| 
| If it is better to increase the size of struct sockaddr_storage shoot me 
| a preferred updated structure definition and I'll go with that.

I am not sure which is less of a pain to do... (binary compatibility?)

christos