Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Why size of sockaddr smaller than size of sockaddr_in6? | Date | Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:04:05 +0800 | From | "Zheng, Jeff" <> |
| |
I thought that sockaddr should hold sockaddr_in sockaddr_in6 and any other socket address (or at least sockaddr_in6). Current definition: struct sockaddr { __SOCKADDR_COMMON (sa_); /* Common data: address family and length. */ char sa_data[14]; /* Address data. */ };
Can be: struct sockaddr { __SOCKADDR_COMMON (sa_); /* Common data: address family and length. */ char sa_data[28]; /* Address data. */ };
Is there any reason not to hold sockaddr_in6 in sockaddr?
Please CC the answers/comments posted to the list in response to my posting to me.
> Thanks > Jeff Jeff.Zheng@intel.com > BTW, I speak for myself, not for Intel Corp. > - 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/
| |