| To: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH] |
| From: | David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:50:16 -0700 |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050607.153359.82068814.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> Portable applications do like this:
> #ifdef IPV6_RECVHOPOPTS
> // RFC2292bis
> #else
> // RFC2292
> #endif
> --yoshfuji
I don't understand. If they do this, they'll
work already when recompiled (with the patch
I sent), won't they?
If they don't do this, old binaries will
return EINVAL on the setsockopt() calls that
have changed. And if they're going to edit
the source, they can do #ifdefs as above and
work again.
How does it help to renumber? I can renumber,
of course-- I just don't see how that does
anything.
+-DLS
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH], David Stevens |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH], YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH], YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPV6 RFC3542 compliance [PATCH], YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |