Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: David Miller
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 9:52 am

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:49:09 -0700


It just occured to me that AF_UNSPEC might be used simply
because "all zeros" might be a valid real bindable address
for some address family.  And using AF_UNSPEC avoids that
problem entirely.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 8:21 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 8:47 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, David Miller, (Wed Sep 19, 9:15 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Alan Cox, (Wed Sep 19, 9:39 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 9:49 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, David Miller, (Wed Sep 19, 9:52 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 10:04 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 10:26 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 10:27 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 10:46 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 10:57 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Ulrich Drepper, (Wed Sep 19, 11:02 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Alan Cox, (Wed Sep 19, 11:06 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 11:30 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Rick Jones, (Wed Sep 19, 11:38 am)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 12:40 pm)
Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Wed Sep 19, 1:33 pm)