From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [RFC] moving the test for sockaddr->sa_family up Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:44:43 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20031117124443.7590c1d4.davem@redhat.com> References: <20031115212034.GA16326@conectiva.com.br> <20031116190757.GA18416@conectiva.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jmorris@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo In-Reply-To: <20031116190757.GA18416@conectiva.com.br> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:07:58 -0200 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:56:04AM -0500, James Morris escreveu: > > On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > Does anybody see any problem with this simplification? Not for 2.6.0, of > > > course... > > > > No, looks like a good idea. Might be able to push address length > > verification up there too. > > Not really, look at the ax25 code... :-\ They have to support two address types, > if we want to keep this flexibility we can't check it at the upper layer, > does anybody here knows if we want or if we can ditch that thing in ax25? this: Right, this is the area where you need to be careful, where people need special semantics just like this ax25 case. I'm %100 fine with the original cleanup for 2.6.1 or later.