From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 22 22:02:09 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909B3106566C
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D368FC17
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id 37816730A1; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:12:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:12:28 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>
Message-ID: <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:02:09 -0000

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
> I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit  
> numbers. Unfortunately
> there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for  
> us old farts) to use.
> 
> Yes, I have found htobe64() and friends.. and that would work.. but I  
> still cannot
> help but feeling we should have the ntohll() and htonll().. for  
> consistency if nothing
> else.
> 
> Any objections to this showing up in a head near you soon (speak soon  
> or I will commit
> the patches to add these ;-D)

strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
In case you want to use Roman Numbers, 64 would be LXIV :)

cheers
luigi