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

Reply via email to