From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Tue Apr 7 17:32:50 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44A727708B for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48xZHQ2b6hz40pW for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 58B28277087; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586E2277086; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48xZHP59VTz40pV; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:32:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from hps2020.home.selasky.org (unknown [62.141.129.235]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 519D2260253; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:32:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: additional ifreq accessors? To: Poul-Henning Kamp , Brooks Davis Cc: arch@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org References: <20200407172151.GB72584@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <62336.1586280397@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:32:37 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <62336.1586280397@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48xZHP59VTz40pV X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of hps@selasky.org designates 2a01:4f8:c17:6c4b::2 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hps@selasky.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.98 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:mail.turbocat.net:c]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[selasky.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-2.68)[ip: (-9.21), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.61), asn: 24940(-1.58), country: DE(-0.02)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 17:32:50 -0000 On 2020-04-07 19:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <20200407172151.GB72584@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>, Brooks Davis writes: > >> My question for the lists is: should we adopt the >> more-technically-correct accessors in FreeBSD or stick with >> slightly-cheaper and more conventional aliasing approach[0]? > > The accessors buys us much more code-isolation, so that would be my vote. > Is there a reason for using "void *" here? char *ifr_addr_get_data(void *ifrp); --HPS