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    [W:0.025 / U:32.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site