Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 19:32:37 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: additional ifreq accessors? Message-ID: <af189ac8-8120-8759-2f7b-f265ed3236ff@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <62336.1586280397@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20200407172151.GB72584@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <62336.1586280397@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-04-07 19:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <20200407172151.GB72584@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>, Brooks Davis writes: > >> My question for the lists is: should we adopt the >> more-technically-correct accessors in FreeBSD or stick with >> slightly-cheaper and more conventional aliasing approach[0]? > > The accessors buys us much more code-isolation, so that would be my vote. > Is there a reason for using "void *" here? char *ifr_addr_get_data(void *ifrp); --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?af189ac8-8120-8759-2f7b-f265ed3236ff>