From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57654)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>) id 1cBJUP-0003rt-Q4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 05:48:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>) id 1cBJUL-0007eg-T2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 05:48:49 -0500
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:21882)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>)
	id 1cBJUL-0007eN-Kp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 05:48:45 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:48:43 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <20161128104843.GC2853@var>
References: <20161123185258.771-1-dgilbert@redhat.com>
	<20161123185258.771-5-dgilbert@redhat.com>
	<20161127151346.GP8854@var.home> <20161127152851.GA25452@var.home>
	<20161128090816.GA2148@work-vm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161128090816.GA2148@work-vm>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] slirp: VMStatify socket level
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com

Hello,

Dr. David Alan Gilbert, on Mon 28 Nov 2016 09:08:16 +0000, wrote:
> Hmm, I don't really know IPv6 but I'm thinking this code will become something like
> the following (says he not knowing whether a scope-id or a flowinfo
> is something that needs migrating) (untested):
> 
> 
> static const VMStateDescription vmstate_slirp_socket_addr = {
>     .name = "slirp-socket-addr",
>     .version_id = 4,
>     .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
>         VMSTATE_UINT16(ss.ss_family, union slirp_sockaddr),
>         VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(sin.sin_addr.s_addr, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet),
>         VMSTATE_UINT16_TEST(sin.sin_port, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet),
> 
>         VMSTATE_BUFFER_TEST(sin6.sin6_addr, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet6),
>         VMSTATE_UINT16_TEST(sin6.sin6_port, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet6),
>         VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(sin6.sin6_flowinfo, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet6),
>         VMSTATE_UINT32_TEST(sin6.sin6_scope_id, union slirp_sockaddr,
>                             slirp_family_inet6),
>                             
>         VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
>     }
> };

Ok, that looks good :)

> So to me that looks pretty clean, we need to add another slirp_family_inet6
> test function, but then we just add the extra fields for the IPv6 stuff.

Yes, now I see.

> Can you suggest an IPv6 command line for testing that ?

Well, it doesn't exist yet, that's the problem. And applying your patch
would have made it to exist even harder, so that's why I was afraid.

I would say that your patch should contain these IPv6 lines, but as
comments since they are untested, for the person who will at some point
want to implement the IPv6 case here.

Samuel