Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:47:56PM +0000, Christos Zoulas 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...

Why do we limit sockaddr_un to less than PATH_MAX? There really aren't
many reasons for it to be shorter. But if we do go that way, using
sockaddr_storage becomes even less attractive. IMO sockaddr_storage
should be the union of all network facing addresses and the potentially
largest is gone with the netiso removal.

Joerg