From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Julius Volz" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:14:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1213204329-10973-1-git-send-email-juliusv@google.com> <48500A0D.5020304@trash.net> <48501C81.6010800@trash.net> <4850233E.7090501@trash.net> <48502826.9060502@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Vince Busam" To: "Patrick McHardy" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Julius Volz wrote: > Adding members at the end sounds interesting! The current structs have > the v4 address members in the middle of the struct, so you couldn't > use a union of v4 and v6 anymore, but since it's only in the userspace > interface, that shouldn't matter much. If this allows us to keep the > interface backwards compatible in an easy way, that would be great. Ah, but the set/get-sockopt calls also pass a size argument, which is the size of the passed structs. If the kernel and userspace struct sizes don't match, it is treated as an error. Is this in case different compilers pad the structs differently, even if the IPVS version stays the same? Julius -- Google Switzerland GmbH