On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:27:26 +0800 Cong Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 06:28 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > My question is a bit more fundamental: Why are you using this new union > > in your patches instead of simply passing around "struct sockaddr" > > pointers? If you did that, then you could simply replace all of the > > rpc_* wrappers with your generic ones, since you wouldn't need to do > > the cast to this (seemingly unnecessary) union. > > Because there are some places have to interpret the structure, without > this union, they need to cast to either sockaddr_in or sockaddr_in6 > first, which is not as pretty as using a union. > > For example, the code in netpoll: > > ipv6_addr_equal(daddr, &np->local_ip.sin6.sin6_addr) > > without the union, it would be: > > struct sockaddr_in6 *addr = (struct sockaddr_in6 *) &np->local_ip; > ipv6_addr_equal(daddr, addr->sin6_addr); > > > > > FWIW, I too am happy to see these routines moved to common code. I just > > wonder whether it might make more sense to use the existing convention > > instead of this new union. > > > Ok, good point. That does look cleaner. I'd still like to see the rpc_* wrappers go away, but that can be done later. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
