On 01/30/09 08:18, Kacheong Poon wrote:
> Michael Schuster wrote:
>
>> I guess it would, but that's not what I expected after that email
>> exchange I mentioned.
>> Conversely, is "port == 0 means 'all ports'" hard to implement?
>
>
> It is just code after all. So the sanity check becomes
> more involved...
>
> if ((min_port == 0 && max_port != 0) ||
I'd say if min_port == 0, max_port can be ignored, so you can eliminate
this clause.
> (min_port != 0 && max_port == 0) ||
since ports are an unsigned integer, the above is covered by (min_port >
max_port), isn't it?
> (min_port > max_port) {
so just test whether min_port > max_port.
> return (EINVAL);
> }
> if (min_port == 0) {
> min_port = 1;
> max_port = 65535;
> }
>
> If you think that the above is easier to read than the
> current simple check, feel free to change the code.
OK. will do.
Michael
--
Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion
Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
