[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49550E8E.6030607@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:04:14 -0500
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
yjwei@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] sctp: Bring SCTP_MAXSEG socket option into
ietf API extension compliance
David Miller wrote:
> From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:47:48 -0500
>
>> From: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>
>>
>> Brings maxseg socket option set/get into line with the latest ietf socket
>> extensions API draft, while maintaining backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
>
> Applied. But I really dislike this scheme used by the compat code.
> Half-way initializing a structure and then depending upon the logic in
> the rest of the function to make sure the rest of the struct (the
> uninitialized part) is never accessed?
>
> Give me a break, programming, auditing, and bug fixing is hard enough
> as it is without sloppy code like this.
Yes, it sucks but the since the draft keeps breaking the ABI between revisions,
it leaves us a between a rock (no support) and a hard place (crappy code).
-vlad
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists