[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19

To: Wietse Venema <wietse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19
From: David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:53:25 +0200
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010910122603.80CA4BC06C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from wietse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:26:03AM -0400
References: <20010910100537.W26627@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010910122603.80CA4BC06C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:26:03AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> David Weinehall:
> > Are you saying that Linux should implement compability with _new_
> > features in FreeBSD 4.x, while at the same time frowning at the fact
> > that Linux introduces a new API?! The mind boggles at the thought.
> SIOCGIFNETMASK is not "new". It exists in systems as ancient as
> SunOS 4.x, which pre dates FreeBSD 4.x by about 10 years. 
> Evidence: RTFM the Postfix source code :-)
> In other words, SIOCGIFNETMASK existed long before Linux could plug
> into a network.

"[snip] old and the new stuff, please name precisely the objections
against portability and compatibility with FreeBSD 4.x aliasing."
This is what lead me to my conclusion. Care to clarify? If you simply
meant SIOCGIFNETMASK, why not write that instead instead of involving
FreeBSD 4.x?!

/David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>    </   Full colour fire           </

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>