On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see an "issue" here. I.e. if the developer requested to append 's' > to the specifier, then it's expected to dump what is in the scope id, even > if that is 0 meaning "unset" scope. > > It would be principle of least surprise -- I could imagine if not dumped, > then a developer would check the source code to find out whether he did a > mistake or it's expected behavior, just to make sure. That's what I would > do probably.
Showing something that's "unset" seems counter-intuitive. The idea here is to be able to printk a sockaddr_in6, and have it show something that looks like what the user would naturally pass to getaddrinfo(3), which is entirely complete. However, I could be convinced that this kind of behavior belongs in it's own flag. Maybe I'll cook up a flag for that instead. > > Is this causing a _real_ issue somewhere (I couldn't parse one out of your > commit message other than 'it would be nice to have')? Nice to have.
