On 07/13/2015 03:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>> const struct sockaddr *sa2)
>> {
>> const struct sockaddr_in6 *sin1 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa1;
>> const struct sockaddr_in6 *sin2 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa2;
>>
>> - return nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr6(sa1, sa2) &&
>> - (sin1->sin6_port == sin2->sin6_port);
>> + return rpc_cmp_addr6(sa1, sa2) && (sin1->sin6_port == sin2->sin6_port);
>> }
>>
>> static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>> @@ -350,31 +301,8 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>> const struct sockaddr_in *sin1 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa1;
>> const struct sockaddr_in *sin2 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa2;
>>
>> - return nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr4(sa1, sa2) &&
>> - (sin1->sin_port == sin2->sin_port);
>> -}
>
> I'd say kill nfs_sockaddr_cmp as well and use rpc_cmp_addr in
> nfs_match_client.
>
Okay, looking closer at the code now. rpc_cmp_addr() explicitely doesn't check for port number, but nfs_sockaddr_cmp() does. I could add port checking to rpc_cmp_addr(), but I don't know if it was left out intentionally when the code was written.
Trond?
Anna
--
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
