----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#review71977 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117893> i wonder if this should go in a net/ip.hpp header which net.hpp can include. it would mean we could target tests to net/ip.hpp, and the utility methods in net.hpp are separated from the implementation of ip. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117884> if this is accepted, the method is poorly named as it's not 'decimal' any more. i don't know the 'right' name for this :/ 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117885> should probably take const IP& instead of passing by value. at least until we're sure of the move semantics. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117886> s/InternetAddress/IP 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117888> nit: can you move the checks up a line? return family_ == that.family_ && address_ == that.address_ && netmask_ == that.netmask_; 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117889> unnecessary comment 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117892> actually, all of these constructors and operators seem redundant. it's perfectly reasonable for the outer IP class to work with the internals of the union directly. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/#comment117890> never ever do this. you'll wipe any vtables that get set up. just explicitly initialize every member in the constructor initializer list. - Dominic Hamon On Feb. 11, 2015, 7:39 a.m., Evelina Dumitrescu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 11, 2015, 7:39 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Dominic Hamon, Jie Yu, Joris Van > Remoortere, and Niklas Nielsen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1919 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1919 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Created the inner class InAddrStorage encapsulated inside the IP class. > The class uses a union with the in_addr and in6_addr fields. > I considered that the The MasterInfo protobuffers should have both an ipv4 > and an ipv6 field. > I intend to use the same Classifiers, addition, removal and update of > container filters, but write different encode/decode functions for IPv4/ICMP > and IPv6/ICMPv6 because the processing of the protocol headers differ. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/net.hpp > a0210ea6440086246aafe632f86498abbb70719a > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/net_tests.cpp > 425132e5d7c3770be4a5a39feea5a2f22179b871 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29288/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Evelina Dumitrescu > >
