From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] [IPV6] COMPAT: Fix SSM applications on 64bit kernels. Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080425.233131.247778262.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080425.230116.234973563.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: dlstevens@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:45736 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751769AbYDZGbb (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:31:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: David Stevens Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:39 -0700 > I considered passing the the real setsockopt function as an argument > to what is now compat_mc_setsockopt() before putting the direct calls in. > By doing that, we can only get in there with a v6 setsockopt when v6 is > loaded, since the calls to it are from the corresponding > compat_setsockopt. > Is that too ugly? > > Could also make these return pointers to the new koptval and > koptlen, > which is really the only thing we need outside the > compat_ipXX_setsockopt()'s. If you're going to use callbacks, and I'd be also asking you to guard this code with CONFIG_IPV6 as appropriate, why not simply put it into the ipv6 socket option handling code? I really see no value putting this in some generic location if we have to deal with those issues, by adding callbacks and ifdef'ery.