From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: socket api problem: can't bind an ipv6 socket to ::ffff:0.0.0.0 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: <20090318091307.GB4799@ff.dom.local> References: <20090317.123146.210941276.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, felix-kernel@fefe.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.27]:23097 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753512AbZCRJNQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:13:16 -0400 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 8so415930qwh.37 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090317.123146.210941276.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17-03-2009 20:31, David Miller wrote: > From: Brian Haley > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:21:52 -0400 > >> Top-posting so others can see your off-list rant in full. I see no >> reason to help you any further, even though I did have a patch that >> would change this behavior for you. Good luck with your "biggest >> noncommercial Internet messaging infrastructure" in the world. > > What a jerk. Brian, don't help him any more, you were being > very reasonable in your email to him. His response was way > out of line. Do you mean he got that joke wrong? Otherwise I think he is right. We shouln't advise him how to do the things right, but, since what he wants looks like legal and acceptable elsewhere, try to do this the least invasive way. Jarek P.