From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/25] NFS: eliminate NIPQUAD(clp->cl_addr.sin_addr) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:52:49 -0500 Message-ID: <473B27E1.7020502@oracle.com> References: <20071113183126.5087.27810.stgit@manray.1015granger.net> <20071114.104533.127429382.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Reply-To: chuck.lever@oracle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050607080806050807070605" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?WU9TSElGVUpJIEhpZGVha2kgLyDlkInol6Toi7HmmI4=?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071114.104533.127429382.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050607080806050807070605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article <20071113183126.5087.27810.stgit@manray.1015granger.net> (at Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:31:27 -0500), Chuck Lever says: > >> clp->rpc_ops->version, >> - NIPQUAD(clp->cl_addr.sin_addr), >> - ntohs(clp->cl_addr.sin_port), >> + rpc_peeraddr2str(clp->cl_rpcclient, RPC_DISPLAY_HEX_ADDR), >> + rpc_peeraddr2str(clp->cl_rpcclient, RPC_DISPLAY_HEX_PORT), >> atomic_read(&clp->cl_count), > > Is this really safe? What's unsafe about it? rpc_peeraddr2str() is designed to be called this way. --------------050607080806050807070605 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="chuck.lever.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="chuck.lever.vcf" YmVnaW46dmNhcmQNCmZuOkNodWNrIExldmVyDQpuOkxldmVyO0NodWNrDQpvcmc6T3JhY2xl IENvcnBvcmF0aW9uO0NvcnBvcmF0ZSBBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmU6IExpbnV4IFByb2plY3RzIEdy b3VwDQphZHI6OzsxMDE1IEdyYW5nZXIgQXZlbnVlO0FubiBBcmJvcjtNSTs0ODEwNDtVU0EN CnRpdGxlOlByaW5jaXBhbCBNZW1iZXIgb2YgU3RhZmYNCnRlbDt3b3JrOisxIDI0OCA2MTQg NTA5MQ0KeC1tb3ppbGxhLWh0bWw6RkFMU0UNCnZlcnNpb246Mi4xDQplbmQ6dmNhcmQNCg0K --------------050607080806050807070605--