On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:07:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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
Ah, yes, that look way better that way, and use that for all our
internal APIs. Fine then, I will look at this,
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list