From owner-freebsd-net Sun Aug 12 14:53:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from starfruit.itojun.org (ip193-66-149-4.dial.kpnqwest.fi [193.66.149.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48C537B407 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by starfruit.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5027BC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:54:33 +0900 (JST) To: Julian Elischer Cc: net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: julian's message of Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:25:22 MST. <3B76E632.28BE644@elischer.org> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: IPV6/KAME/protosw integration cleanup From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:54:33 +0900 Message-Id: <20010812205433.BE5027BC@starfruit.itojun.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> >1/ removal of "control" argument from rip6_input and prepend control mbuf >> >to chain AS IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. This makes rip6_input conform to the proto >> >type for input. (I have not confirmed that the information in control >> >is a valid mbuf but it is an mbuf pointer). >> i don't see any "control" argument in rip6_input in kame tree, as well >> as freebsd sys/netinet6/raw_ip6.c revision 1.12. which revision >> are you looking at? >Sorry, wrong function.. it was output.... ok, >here is the fix xx_output() has never been governed by protocol switch structure and therefore ther are numerous variations we see in the tree. i don't see your problem at all. >> i can partially buy this, but for *BSD code sharing, i do need a >> compromise here. permit us to use varargs. >no. are you the one who decide the rule here? >it can be in the netbsd compatibility code. >it's going away. more #ifdef = more bug, and kame/freebsd gets left behind. i really hate all the cosmetic differences *BSD has. freebsd has more of it than anyone else. >> no you can't remove "proto" argument from the argument list. >> because of the way ipv6 extension header chain (and IPv4 AH/ESP >> header) is designed, proto argument has to be passed around, otherwise >> we can't know which protocol we are processing (think of raw ip header >> processing, like rip_input). >I din't say remove.. >I said ADD. so are you proposing to compromise protocol-independent protosw for the sake of IP? I guess your opinion is too IP centric... itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message