From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:54 -0700 Message-ID: <46F1608E.7060908@redhat.com> References: <46F13E8B.4050309@redhat.com> <46F15305.2030507@redhat.com> <20070919172653.GB18045@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev , Linux Kernel To: Andi Kleen Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52173 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbXISRrI (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:47:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070919172653.GB18045@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andi Kleen wrote: >> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my >> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC. >=20 > memset(&sockaddr, 0, sizeof(sockaddr)) should give you AF_UNSPEC But the spec calls for null address for the protocol. That means the family for the null address is the same as the family of the socket. - -- =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG8WCO2ijCOnn/RHQRAgtsAJ9qTFVj5QQbVG/hUflxo/6uPOfl4QCdHSX8 wi2GX7B0pht8VDaswYLqdpM=3D =3DsMSg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----