Re: route_protosw.pr_input

[Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 4:01 PM Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost> wrote:
>
> 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.

I just prefer having just one structure to having two similar structures,
which reduces some codes.

(Well, and FreeBSD / OpenBSD / Dragonfly BSD did the change.)

  ozaki-r