tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: if_flags

> Not well designed, not good, but still an API, and in fact, the API
> that is currently used.

Well, speaking of "the spec" or "the API" is a bit fuzzy.  There are
many specs the current code is an implementation of, and I see no
particular reason to pick the one "everything is exactly as in this
reference implementation" as "the" API.  On the benefit side, it's
well-specified; on the detriment side, it's over-specified, to the
point of stagnation.

Indeed, typedefs like bpf_int32 (<net/bpf.h>), n_short
(<netinet/in_systm.h>), and tcp_seq (<netinet/tcp.h>) argue that the
"this reference implementation _is_ the spec" stance is wrong, that
code that knows what the underlying type is and uses it is broken, even
though it conforms to the kind of reference-implementation API
pseudo-spec you seem to be arguing for here.

Anyway, this appears to be a tempest-in-a-teapot, in that what I intend
to do is a ABI change and thus is unlikely to go into the tree in the
simplistic form I, at least, have been discussing here.  (It's probably
what I'll implement, and might even serve as the basis for some in-tree
work someday, but that's far from the same thing.)

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML      
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index