Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > +struct sockaddr_can { > > + sa_family_t can_family; > > + int can_ifindex; > > + union { > > + struct { canid_t rx_id, tx_id; } tp16; > > + struct { canid_t rx_id, tx_id; } tp20; > > + struct { canid_t rx_id, tx_id; } mcnet; > > + struct { canid_t rx_id, tx_id; } isotp; > > + } can_addr; > > Again being curious, what is the value of this union of all its members > have the same definition? Backward source code compatibility?
As Oliver already wrote, different CAN transport protocols may use different sockaddr structures. Therefore, we have made can_addr a union. The four we have defined already, all look the same, but other, future protocols may define a different structure. > > +struct can_proto { > > + int type; > > + int protocol; > > + int capability; > > + struct proto_ops *ops; > > + struct proto *prot; > > +}; > > + > > +/* function prototypes for the CAN networklayer core (af_can.c) */ > > + > > +extern int can_proto_register(struct can_proto *cp); > > +extern void can_proto_unregister(struct can_proto *cp); > > We have proto registering infrastructure for bluetooth, inet and now > CAN, have you looked at: > > struct inet_protosw; > proto_{register,unregister}, etc? Yes, I know inet_protosw and inet_{,un}register_protosw(). But we can't use inet_register_protosw(). And can_proto_register() does use proto_register(). What exactly do you want to suggest? urs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html