Francois Romieu wrote:
> Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org> :
> 
>>(resend)
>>Any comments this time?
> 
> 
> Did I miss a simultaneous use of both buffers or could it be possible to
> save an extra IP_NAME_SZ bytes of data with an evil ugly union ?

I don't see any simultaneous uses of the 2 buffers, so here's the
union version of the patch (attached this time), although it only
saves 4 bytes... so maybe the compiler had already realized that
usage.  Either one accomplishes a large stack reduction, but the
first one is slightly more readable & maintainable (to me),
and less error-prone (or more future-proof) (again, to me).

Thanks,
-- 
~Randy