netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow Both IPv6 and IPv4 Sockets on the Same Port

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()?


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