From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 22 22:17:42 2010 Return-Path: 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 7DE55106566B for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:17:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Received: from lakerest.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:240:585:2:213:d4ff:fef3:2d8d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F89B8FC18 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [32.177.5.176] ([32.177.5.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakerest.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5MMGoBA057964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:17:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=lakerest.net; s=mail; t=1277245061; h=Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References: X-Mailer; b=g5dQ5YxGM1j5HKaB93zWQD5rNvKyLJcGhJOyaB7hi6yCRbrEl/i8M4s ggpQHjumeEYDAhgEjDu5dZj7D4Ty2kQ== Message-Id: <274959C7-0B6C-4A96-83C1-D29A7D5107D6@lakerest.net> From: Randall Stewart To: Luigi Rizzo In-Reply-To: <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:17:37 -0400 References: <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:17:42 -0000 On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > 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 :) But htonl/nthol and friends have been used for years. Yes 32/64 and 16 are clearer but they are not consistent with what about everyone in the networking world uses. R > > cheers > luigi > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell)