[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-inetutils] route
From: |
Debarshi Ray |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-inetutils] route |
Date: |
Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:17:06 +0530 |
> If one has multiple variants of PF_NETLINK or PF_ROUTE, then you would
> need to add specific versions for each such system, and _that_ is
> ugly, and completely unmaintainable. The commands do small, specific
> things, there is no harm, or what you percive as uglyness, in using
> #ifdef here.
Then those PF_NETLINK variants can be #ifdefed in the netlink_*.c
files. Same for PF_ROUTE. But combining entirely different socket
families in one file is completely different.
> You assume that PF_NETLINK and PF_ROUTE behave exactly the same across
> all systems, they might not.
No. I did not.
Happy hacking,
Debarshi
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route,
Debarshi Ray <=
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Debarshi Ray, 2008/09/05
- Re: [bug-inetutils] route, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/09/05