From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3723 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Proposed roadmap to 1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:04:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20130724160409.GW3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130629235041.GA5046@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130724221410.4b17905d@sibserver.ru> <20130724144245.GT3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130724232942.45f4b7ba@sibserver.ru> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374681863 9735 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2013 16:04:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:04:23 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3727-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jul 24 18:04:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V21Y7-0002sJ-7k for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:04:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7617 invoked by uid 550); 24 Jul 2013 16:04:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 7609 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2013 16:04:22 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130724232942.45f4b7ba@sibserver.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3723 Archived-At: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:29:42PM +0800, orc wrote: > > > getifaddrs() does not returns AF_PACKET like glibc does, so list of > > > all system interfaces is incomplete (does not shows inactive > > > interfaces). > > > > Is there a use case you want this for? I remember when we added > > getifaddrs this was discussed, and I was hesitant to add AF_PACKET > > because it's using some deprecated version of some structure where the > > fields are too small to store the values they're supposed to > > represent. I'd have to look through the mailing list and/or IRC logs > > to recall the details, though. I'm not entirely opposed to it if > > there's a serious need, but at the time it seemed like a poorly > > designed interface. > > I faced problem when I tried to build dhcpcd with musl. I > dropped dhcpcd then, found simple default.script for udhcpc and forgot > about any problems. Do you know what dhcpcd needs it for? If it's just automatic binding when you don't specify an interface, that's probably a bad idea anyway... But maybe we should support it. > > > I attached patch for getaddrinfo() (adopt it if you need it) > > > and test program. > > > > I think it could be cleaner/simpler but I might just commit it as-is > > for now and wait to clean it up until the getaddrinfo cleanup/overhaul > > which was scheduled for this release cycle but will get pushed back to > > the next. > > Thanks for review. I think I can apply it now on server :) I didn't really "review" it, but as long as you tested it, it's probably fine. There are only 3 possible code paths here, not an infinite family of them, so as long as each of the 3 works for you it should be fine. Rich