Hi Eugene, Thanks for taking a look at these!
+typedef __u8 mctp_eid_t; + +struct mctp_addr { + mctp_eid_t s_addr; +}; + struct sockaddr_mctp { + unsigned short int smctp_family;This gap makes the size of struct sockaddr_mctp 2 bytes less at least on m68k, are you fine with that?
Yep, that's OK from the protocol implementation side; this layout better matches the "hierarchy" of the MCTP addressing. If we go for optimal packing, the order of the members makes somewhat less sense. We could add padding members, but I'm not sure that's worth it... I noticed a few other protocol implementations doing similar things, so assume it isn't an issue - it's all arch-specific ABI anyway, right?
+ int smctp_network; + struct mctp_addr smctp_addr; + __u8 smctp_type; + __u8 smctp_tag; };
Cheers, Jeremy
