Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:10:31 PST From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-include@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include utmp.h Message-ID: <96Dec6.091046pst.177711@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Dec 96 11:06:14 PST." <9893.849812774@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <9893.849812774@time.cdrom.com> you write: >Simple questions: Is there concensus for bumping UT_HOSTSIZE to the >next increment? 32 or 64? What about the other fields that Peter >suggested? I think that the host address would be extremely useful, so that there's a uniform representation of the host address that a program can get to. I don't think it should be a struct in_addr, though, since we don't want to have to change again when IPv6 comes around, so perhaps it should be an (ugh) 20-byte sockaddr. A bigger UT_HOSTSIZE makes some sense, but given the host address field it's not necessarily critical. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96Dec6.091046pst.177711>