[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AB1FF14.6000801@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:19:16 +0800
From: Danny Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
To: Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, kaber@...sh.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
jmorris@...ei.org, pekkas@...core.fi, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marc Milgram <mmilgram@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipv4: make do_ip_setsockopt for IP_MULTICAST_IF support
ip_mreq struct
On 09/17/2009 05:16 PM, Shan Wei wrote:
> Xiaotian Feng wrote, at 09/17/2009 01:20 PM:
>> ip_mreq and ip_mreqn is almost the same, and do_ip_setsockopt for IP_MULTICAST_IF
>> part supported ip_mreqn struct. This patch adds support for ip_mreq struct.
>>
>
> It's not meaning to support the ip_mreq struct, the imr_multiaddr member
> never be used by the IP_MULTICAST_IF.
>
> In addition, using the option normally like this:
> struct in_addr interface_addr;
> setsockopt (socket, IPPROTO_IP, IP_MULTICAST_IF,&interface_addr, sizeof(interface_addr));
>
> Do your patch suggest using the option like this?
> struct ip_mreq mreq;
> setsockopt (socket, IPPROTO_IP, IP_MULTICAST_IF,&mreq, sizeof(mreq));
>
In fact, current implemetation supports:
struct ip_mreqn mreqn;
setsockopt(socket, IPPROTO_IP, IP_MULTICAST_IF, &mreqn, sizeof(mreqn));
Then why not support mreq?
>
> Best Regards
> -----
> Shan Wei
>
--
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