Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:58:23 -0700 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: karels@bsdi.com, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Causing <netinet/in.h> to depend on <sys/socket.h> Message-ID: <200109081858.LAA12165@windsor.research.att.com> References: <200109072125.OAA25298@windsor.research.att.com> <3B9A134D.3B31C443@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>So... we didn't need these before, why do we now? uh... to introduce new functionality that we didn't have before? We didn't need kernel threads before, why do we now? >Why do they go in in.h? Aren't they generic to all types of >sockaddr's, not just sockaddr_in's? The structures in question are part of an IP protocol independent API for multicast group membership. They use the struct sockaddr_storage that was introduced by the IPv6 API to provide for forward compatability. Since these structs are used as parameters to setsockopt(), it introduces more complexity to pass pointers. >I don't see anyone using the things. I guess I'm missing what things you mean. If you mean the new API that's not in the system yet, that's because it's not in the system yet. If you mean sockaddr_storage, then you haven't looked particularly hard. >Also: this is a DRAFT RFC... if it requires this type of thing, >then it should probably be revised so that it _doesn't_ require >this type of thing The people who have already implemented the API (Microsoft is shipping it) might not like that idea. >I REALLY object to turning our header files into [polluting junk] Well, how hard do you object to Mike's suggestion? Especially since it's POSIX-sanctioned pollution? Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109081858.LAA12165>