netdev
[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 //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </

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