| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20021004.000631.28088811.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200210031301.RAA29267@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021003.231534.83777766.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021004.000631.28088811.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:06:31 +0900 (JST) In article <20021003.231534.83777766.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 03 Oct 2002 23:15:34 +0900 (JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says: > In article <200210031301.RAA29267@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:01:11 +0400 (MSD)), kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says: > > > While doing *_get_port() daddr/dport are _unknown_ and always zero, > > so it never works. > > > > Please, remove these bits, the patch will become simpler. > > Ok, I'll do that. I remember that test for daddr is for existing sockets, not for socket doing XXX_get_port(). So, I think I don't need to remove that. Where can daddr/dport be non-zero during get_port()? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |