lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:54 -0700
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
> >> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
> >
> > memset(&sockaddr, 0, sizeof(sockaddr)) should give you AF_UNSPEC
>
> But the spec calls for <quote>null address for the protocol</quote>.
>
> That means the family for the null address is the same as the family of
> the socket.

Which is a valid address in some protocols. If I remember rightly then
appletalk net 0 node 0 port 0 is valid although I'd want to look in the
book to check that - ditto AF_ECONET although I doubt anyone cares too
much 8)

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-19 20:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site