Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:13:19 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IPv4: Enable use of 240/4 address space | From | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <> |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801180242270.14025@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> (at Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:52:08 +0100 (CET)), Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> says:
> > On Jan 18 2008 10:26, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > >> -#define IN_EXPERIMENTAL(a) ((((long int) (a)) & 0xf0000000) == 0xf0000000) > >> -#define IN_BADCLASS(a) IN_EXPERIMENTAL((a)) > > > >No, please keep these macros. > > > >> @@ -264,7 +261,7 @@ static inline bool ipv4_is_local_multicast(__be32 addr) > >> > >> static inline bool ipv4_is_badclass(__be32 addr) > >> { > >> - return (addr & htonl(0xf0000000)) == htonl(0xf0000000); > >> + return addr == 0xFFFFFFFF; > >> } > >> > > > >To (un)align the IN_BADCLASS macro and ipv6_is_badclass() definition, > > Unalign? IPv6? "Limited" broadcast?
Sorry, ipv4_is_badclass(). Assuming IN_BADCLASS() is still there, we should not reuse the name of "ipv6_is_badclass" because the their meanings are different.
> -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 "limited broadcast address" (vs subnet broadcast address, which can be forwarded by routers).
--yoshfuji
| |