On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:31:29PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to have this in a callable function too
> > > >
> > > > int virSocketAddrRange(struct sockaddr_storage *start,
> > > > struct sockaddr_storage *end);
> > >
> > > Are you supposed to look struct sockaddr_storage ? As posted in my
> > > last mail this seems a completely opaque structure at least in theory
> > > and if you want to keep the portability it's supposed to bring.
> >
> > You cast to one of the address specific structs according
> > to the ss_family field.
>
> humpf ... okay it has to be cast to be accessed, that's weird,
> definitely.
Yeah, ideally it would have been in a union, but POSIX the way it was
defined when sockets API were first designed, didn't allow a union to
be retrofitted.
We could consider a union ourselves though for our API if it might
make it a little clearer, eg
typedef union {
struct sockaddr_storage stor;
struct sockaddr_in inet4;
struct sockaddr_in6 inet6;
} virSocketAddr;
to allow more direct access without the casting
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list