Re: route_protosw.pr_input

[Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost>]

Le 06/09/2018 à 10:45, Ryota Ozaki a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:37 PM Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost> wrote:
> > In net/rtsock.c, I don't understand where we use the 'pr_input' field of
> > COMPATNAME(route_protosw)[]. To me it can't be used: .pr_input takes a
> > variadic function, but if you grep through the tree, you can see that
> > the variadic .pr_input functions we call always take three arguments, as
> > opposed to raw_input() which takes five.
> >
> > Therefore raw_input() is never called via .pr_input, and we can set the
> > field to NULL. Then we can switch all the .pr_input functions to be static
> > and not variadic.
> >
> > This will clear a lot of confusion, and will allow us to find problems
> > related to types -- like this one.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> No objection.
>
> And a next step would be to change the signature of protosw#pr_input
> to that of ip6protosw#pr_input and then we can merge protosw and
> ip6protosw into one.

Is it a really good idea? To me it would be better if the IPv4 pr_input
stayed as

	void x_input(struct mbuf *m, int off, int proto)

I don't see a lot of point in wanting to mimic IPv6; IPv6 has constraints
that don't apply to IPv4. Eg the second arg is a pointer, because of the
format of the IPv6 options -- but that doesn't apply to IPv4.