From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:19:29 +0900 (JST) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021004.001929.03389091.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20021003.231534.83777766.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20021004.000631.28088811.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20021003.080408.78030688.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@oss.sgi.com, usagi@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: davem@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20021003.080408.78030688.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In article <20021003.080408.78030688.davem@redhat.com> (at Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT)), "David S. Miller" says: > I remember that test for daddr is for existing sockets, > not for socket doing XXX_get_port(). > So, I think I don't need to remove that. > > Where can daddr/dport be non-zero during get_port()? test for daddr if for sk2. sk2 is iterator for existing sockets, which can be "connected." daddr can be non-zero, can't it? Am I wrong??? --yoshfuji