Chris, thanks for your comments. I'm kind of thinking the same - I actually also don't really like my result of merging the strings of code so much.
I'll go on and prepare a smaller change set only addressing the real bugs. I also agree to switching the Linux implementation to getifaddrs at the time the Java 10 branch opens to gain experience with that without shipment pressure. Stay tuned :) Christoph > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com] > Sent: Dienstag, 12. Juli 2016 16:10 > To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com> > Cc: net-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: RFR (S) JDK-8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes and > improvements for network interface listing > > Christoph, > > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 14:36, Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Chris (or anyone who is holding a stake in the NetworkInterface native > implementation), > > > > I’ve spent some time on cleaning up NetworkInterface.c and came up with a > bigger change:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8160174.2/ > > > > With this I attempted to consolidate the interface listing functionality of > > the 2 > main categories – one is ioctl (used on Linux IPv4, Solaris and AIX) and the > other is getifaddrs (used on MacOS). I introduced some defines to switch > between the implementations. I also consolidated the functionality for the > ioctl > based network interface listings by using an #ifdef section to distinguish > between the Linux/AIX versus Solaris field and constant names. > > > > I’ve spent some time testing on the platforms and in principal it works. > > But as > it is a matter of taste, I’d like to ask you if you support this type of > change or > have any hints or recommendations before going forward to finalize this. > > I’m personally don’t like this approach much. I think it adds further > complexity and difficulty to this code, which already has its fair share > of both. > > > For Linux I’m also suggesting to use the getifaddrs approach – I tested and > found it working everywhere and with this we could get rid of the > implementation to read /proc/net for IPv6. > > You should probably break this type of change out, so that it can be > evaluated independently, on its own merit. If it add nothing more than > clean up, may it makes sense for this to happen early in 10, where it > can have a longer time to bake. > > > Furthermore I’m generally setting Null for the IPv6 broadcast address – > > which > I think is common sense for IPv6. > > Same as above. This “smaller” changes can sometimes get lost in > the noise of larger refactoring. > > -Chris. > > > > Thanks in advance and best regards > > Christoph > > > > > > From: Langer, Christoph > > Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:37 > > To: 'net-dev@openjdk.java.net' <net-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > Subject: RFR (S) JDK-8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes and > improvements for network interface listing > > > > Hi, > > > > can I please get a review the following change: > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8160174.1/ > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8160174 > > > > I made further fixes and cleanups for listing Unix type network interfaces, > especially on AIX and Linux. I ran builds and verified also on Solaris and > Mac. > > > > Thanks > > Christoph
