Re: [PATCH] [RFC] increase MAX_ADDR_LEN

(no name) ((no email))
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:50:34 +0900 (JST)


In article <1037116836.8500.55.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> (at 12 Nov 2002 16:00:36 +0000), Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> says:

> 2. Add some new address setting ioctls, and ensure the old ones keep the
> old address length limit. That is needed because the old caller wont
> have allocated enough address space for a 20 byte address return.
>
> You have to solve both though, and the first patch should probably be
> the one to add more sensible address set/get functions.

*BSDs have SIOCGLIFPHYADDR etc., but, they're obsolete;
we should use rtnetlink (or routing socket in BSDs) to manage
addresses. So, not having such ioctls for long addresses
would be ok.

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
-
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/