[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: sendmsg() arguments
    On Mon, 17 May 1999 wrote:

    > > The only problem I have with that, is that msg_name=NULL was used in
    > > some my program to indicate that there is no name,
    > Let's continue the analogy. Do you find useful to supply
    > NULL buffer to write() and some not-zero length?

    write() deals with data without assigning any meaning to its type and
    structure -- the argument is void, and size does not specify anything but
    the amount of data involved (and 0 is the special case). In the case of
    message the pointer has specific meaning of address, and size is
    secondary, derived from its type. If I know that the address is of
    specific type, and it is NULL, it probably will make sense to put sizeof
    if that type as the size.

    > I do not. And I see no differences between data buffer,
    > address buffer and ancillary data buffer

    Address may have size even if it's NULL.

    > and no reasons
    > to introduce code lines considering unnatural special cases.
    > > > BTW some time ago recvfrom() behaved in the same manner,
    > > > but broken way appeared to be described as valid in UNIX98,
    > > > so that it was changed.
    > >
    > > Maybe for consistency sake, sendmsg() can be made to match this?
    > Maybe, yes. Though, to be honest, it is rather recvfrom()/sendto()
    > should be fixed to be self-consistent 8)
    > BTW for beginning fix your program. 8)

    It's already fixed, I just don't think that there are no others that
    behave the same way.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.023 / U:4.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site