Samuel Thibault, on Fri 11 Dec 2015 20:29:44 +0100, wrote: > Thomas Huth, on Fri 11 Dec 2015 16:06:22 +0100, wrote: > > On 11/12/15 01:15, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > From: Guillaume Subiron <maet...@subiron.org> > > > > > > This patch makes solookup() compatible with varying address families. > > > Also, > > > this function was only compatible with TCP. Having the socket list in > > > argument, it is now compatible with UDP too. Finally, some optimization > > > code is factorized inside the function (the function look at the last > > > returned result before browsing the complete socket list). > > > > > > This also adds a sockaddr_equal() function to compare two > > > sockaddr_storage. > > > > I'd maybe also split this patch into two - first introduce the > > sockaddr_equal() function, then do the other changes. If you do too much > > stuff in one patch, it gets more difficult to read. > > Actually I think I'll do the converse. solookup doesn't take a sockaddr > first, so introducing sockaddr_equal just to make it take separate > in_addr and lport would make both patches clumsy. Making solookup access > sockaddr first is however not too bad.
Mmm, that's still clumsy: making solookup use sockaddr_storage without using solookup means putting all the casts there, it's really unreadable, while the version with sockaddr_equal is nice to read. And conversely, introducing sockaddr_equal first is clumsy. I'll however have a look at introducing the optimizations etc. first, so that both making solookup use sockaddr and introducing sockaddr_equal looks natural. Samuel
