From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:31:23 +0000 Message-ID: <10385.1171024283@redhat.com> References: <20070209.015539.53640067.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20070208163211.23973.5877.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert.xu@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, arjan@infradead.org To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38034 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946429AbXBIMbh (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:31:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070209.015539.53640067.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > and make it sure to align on 64-bit word. The first part of sockaddr_rxrpc is exactly 64 bits; then comes the transport address, so that's okay. > This sockaddr_rxrpc{} should NOT include sockaddr_in{} directly. > Please use sockaddr_storage{} (or sockaddr{}, maybe), Why can't I include sockaddr_in and sockaddr_in6 in sockaddr_rxrpc, btw? > > That won't work. That would then make the address larger than the maximum > > size (ie: sizeof(struct sockaddr_storage)). > > sockaddr{}, then... But that's not big enough to hold a sockaddr_in6... David