Re: patch: sockaddr instead of mbuf to carry addresses

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

In article <20150324230053.AB04314A1D3%mail.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>Tyler Retzlaff <rtr%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> attached is the first of a set of patches intended to remove the use of 
>> mbuf as a bucket to carry sockaddr structures for per-user requests. 
>> this patch introduces the structure required and changes bind.
>> 
>> i've been running it myself, the atf tests work with it and there has 
>> been some private review prior to posting.
>> 
>> comments welcome
>> 
>
>Thanks for working on this.
>
>Unfortunately, I have not had time for a careful review, but from a quick
>check of the key parts it looks good.  One issue: why struct sockaddr_big?
>I think we can and should use struct sockaddr_storage for this.  Also, is
>there any reason why the address parameter could not be const?

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...

christos