ssize_t (and size_t) are only 4 bytes on 32-bit systems, so they won't fit
on those systems.

For return codes what's the problem with simple a int as we've used
elsewhere?

Bill

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljed...@linaro.org>
wrote:

> On 27 November 2014 at 19:18, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > On 11/27/2014 07:20 PM, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27 November 2014 at 17:10, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 11/27/2014 06:48 PM, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is simple and should in practice cover all situations. MAC
> >>>> addresses are not of extremely variable size. In practice, only 48-bit
> >>>> and 64-bit MAC addresses (EUI - Extended Unique Identifier) are used
> >>>> AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can linux on ioctl(sockfd, SIOCSIFHWADDR, ..) use both 48 and 64 bit
> >>> macs?
> >>>
> >>>> However I would rather return -1 on error (and use ssize_t as the
> >>>> return type). As a general convention I think we should use negative
> >>>> values for error and positive values for success. See e.g. POSIX
> >>>> read() call.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Ola
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> but size_t is unsigned. so that or it int or it's 0 on error, like
> Perti
> >>> wrote.
> >>
> >> That's why I referenced read():
> >> ssize_t read(int fd, void *buf, size_t count);
> >>
> >> Uses ssize_t as return type so negative values can be returned.
> >>
> >>
> > Interesting I did so. But not ssize_t, I used size_t and then on check if
> > (-1 == ret)
> > gcc errors that I'm comparing signed and unsigned.
> >
> > is ssize_t signed size?
> Right on
>
> I doubt we will be returning MAC addresses larger than would fit into
> ssize_t.
>
> >
> >
> > Maxim.
> >
> >>> Maxim.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> lng-odp mailing list
> lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to