On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 16:24 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 23:02 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 15:13 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 14:23 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > > > Especially the calculation of timestamps is identicall for addresses.
> > > > By creating a "base struct", we can use the same code for that, because
> > > > NMPlatformIP4Address and NMPlatformIP6Address can now both be treated as
> > > > NMPlatformIPAddress (and the same for routes).
> > >
> > > Is the only reason for the #define of the common fields so that you
> > > don't have to do another level of indirection? It looks somewhat ugly
> > > and my personal preference would be to just declare the base struct in
> > > the functions you want to use it in and up-cast if you need the v4 or v6
> > > version... kinda like we do with objects. So I certainly agree with
> > > the principle, but lets see what other people say about the
> > > implementation...
> >
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > could you elaborate an what would be your preference? I don't
> > understand.
>
> Sorry :) I mean that I'm not wild about the #define of the common
> fields, but I'm OK with it if others think its fine. Typically it be
> something more like this:
>
> typedef struct {
> NMPlatformIPAddress p;
> <ipv4 stuff>
> } NMPlatformIP4Address;
>
> typedef struct {
> NMPlatformIPAddress p;
> <ipv6 stuff>
> } NMPlatformIP6Address;
>
> void option1 (NMPlatformIP4Address *addr)
> {
> NMPlatformIPAddress *parent = (NMPlatformIP4Address *) addr;
> addr->address = xxx;
> }
>
> void option2 (NMPlatformIP4Address *addr)
> {
> addr->p.address = xxx;
> }
>
> which is more in line with kernel/glibc style I think. It does mean a
> bit more typing though.
>
> Dan
> I see, but the disadvantage is, that I would have to fixup *many* occurrences in existing code. Also, it is more typing. This way is also how libnl3 does it with the NLHDR_COMMON define (just to compete with your glib role model :) ) Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
