Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:36 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if.c route.c rtsock.c Message-ID: <20040416040536.A22418@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpisg08a7g.fsf@dwp.des.no>; from des@des.no on Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:54:11PM %2B0200 References: <200404160814.i3G8EYpj071288@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040416090520.GA1194@FreeBSD.org> <20040416023457.A12665@xorpc.icir.org> <xzpisg08a7g.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:54:11PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:05:20AM +0000, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > #define ifp2ifaddr(p) ifaddr_byindex((p)->if_index) > > ifaddr_byindex() is already a macro, so i'd rather not have the > > double indirection. > > What difference does it make? it is two different ways of getting the same info, which is precisely what i was trying to remove in the first place. But the most important thing is that we have to decide whether the search key is the ifp or the ifindex, and use one consistently. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040416040536.A22418>