From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:30:19 +0900 (JST)
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:44:13 +0100 (CET)),
> Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > From 84bccef295aa9754ee662191e32ba1d64edce2ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:44:13 +0100 (CET)), Jan
Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> From 84bccef295aa9754ee662191e32ba1d64edce2ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:10:44 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] IPv4:
On Jan 18 2008 11:13, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
>> -static inline bool ipv4_is_badclass(__be32 addr)
>> +static inline bool ipv4_is_broadcast(__be32 addr)
>> {
>
>I'm just afraid that people might think ipv4_is_broadcast
>is for testing subnet broadcast address.
>
>255.255.255.255 is "limit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:13:19 +0900 (JST)),
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Assuming IN_BADCLASS() is still there, we should not reuse the name
> of "ipv6_is_badclass" because the their meanings are different.
Again, ipv4_is_badclass()
My h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:52:08 +0100 (CET)), Jan
Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> On Jan 18 2008 10:26, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> >> -#define IN_EXPERIMENTAL(a) long int) (a)) & 0xf000) ==
> >> 0xf000)
> >> -#define IN_BADCLASS(
On Jan 18 2008 10:26, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
>> -#define IN_EXPERIMENTAL(a) long int) (a)) & 0xf000) ==
>> 0xf000)
>> -#define IN_BADCLASS(a) IN_EXPERIMENTAL((a))
>
>No, please keep these macros.
>
>> @@ -264,7 +261,7 @@ static inline bool ipv4_is_local_
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:13:52 +0100 (CET)), Jan
Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> diff --git a/include/linux/in.h b/include/linux/in.h
> index 27d8a5a..b01bf75 100644
> --- a/include/linux/in.h
> +++ b/include/linux/in.h
> @@ -216,9 +216,6 @@ struct sockaddr_in
7 matches
Mail list logo