On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, Hal Murray wrote:
If the values are identical, then it's not functionally incorrect, but
it's certainly conceptually incorrect to compare an SO_* value to a
cmsg_type field. And if the values are identical, it wouldn't change the
behavior to use the correct name.
Sorry, I guess my previous message wasn't clear. Let me try again.
I tried what you expect. It didn't work. The reason it didn't work is
because SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD isn't defined, either on the reporter's system
or on my reasonably current version of Linux.
Poking around, I found that SCM_foo is defined by something like:
#define SCM_foo SO_foo
So I changed the code to use SO_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD in the 2 places where it
should use SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD
That also matched the debugging printout.
What I forgot to do was put a comment in the code. Sorry. I'll do that
after the release.
I agree that if it's functionally correct it's not a release blocker. But
I still don't understand why you did it the way you did. To wit:
Poking around, I found that SCM_foo is defined by something like:
#define SCM_foo SO_foo
If that's really true, then SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD should be defined any time
that SO_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD is defined, so using the correct macro should
work. If SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD is *not* defined in this case (but the
correct value is known), then it would be preferable to supply the missing
definition and reference it correctly in the code, rather than referencing
a wrong macro that just happens to have the right value.
This conforms to the principle of keeping the weirdness out of the body of
the code. Comments are no substitute for code that's sufficiently obvious
that it doesn't require explanation. :-)
Fred Wright
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
