On 6/23/10 10:12 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
...
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
So please tell me why you object so strongly? We have the 16/32/64 bit
names which
are nice but are not expected so folks seem to not use them. I have
people's ignorance is not an excuse for not doing things right.
We'd still be using BYTE, WORD and DWORD otherwise.
I think there is no doubt that we should use the 16/32/64 bit names
if we could start from scratch, and the only reason for not doing
so is avoiding gratuitous changes to existing/stable code.
The case of *to*ll does not apply, in that there is no actual legacy
to adapt to. And btw there is tons of places which use the 16/32/64 bit
names in the filesystem, usb and generic device drivers. In fact,
many more than ntohl/htonl
> grep -r be32 ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc
1438 6397 145174
> grep -r le32 ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc
2203 10269 210989
> grep -r ntohl ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc
854 4009 84855
> grep -r htonl ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc
738 3604 72970
what he said..
if you want to have ntohll in SCTP then that is your choice, but I
think it
should be a local define to be64toh or ntoh64
I do prefer the ntoh64 version but beXXtoh or whatever it looks like
others are using is ok to me too since 'net' is a pretty wide
definition and not ALL protocols are big endian.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
