Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47841 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932942Ab3HGNVc (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:21:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:21:23 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: Cong Wang Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2 5/8] sunrpc: use generic union inet_addr Message-ID: <20130807092123.451e93db@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <1375878446.11370.36.camel@cr0> References: <1375427674-21735-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <1375427674-21735-6-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <20130802093625.2c70a330@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <1375672445.32485.8.camel@cr0> <20130806062801.67714276@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <1375878446.11370.36.camel@cr0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:27:26 +0800 Cong Wang 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