James Carlson wrote:
> Peter Dunlap writes:
>
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~pdunlap/iscsit-webrev/webrev/
>>
>
> 1006,1010: what is this about? Why would you want "either" IPv6 or
> IPv4? Shouldn't you either know exactly which one you want, or need
> to construct *both*?
>
Hi James,
I realize this is a bit of a delayed reaction but I don't really
understand this comment -- it sounds like this code doesn't do what we
think it does:
991 idm_status_t
992 idm_so_tgt_svc_online(idm_svc_t *is)
993 {
994 idm_so_svc_t *so_svc;
995 idm_svc_req_t *sr = &is->is_svc_req;
996 struct sockaddr_in sin_ip;
997 struct sockaddr_in6 sin6_ip;
998 uint32_t on = 1;
999
1000 mutex_enter(&is->is_mutex);
1001 so_svc = (idm_so_svc_t *)is->is_so_svc;
1002
1003 /*
1004 * Try creating an IPv6 socket first
1005 */
1006 if ((so_svc->is_so = idm_socreate(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0)) ==
NULL) {
1007 /*
1008 * If failed, try creating an IPv4 socket
1009 */
1010 if ((so_svc->is_so = idm_socreate(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0))
1011 == NULL) {
1012 mutex_exit(&is->is_mutex);
1013 return (IDM_STATUS_FAIL);
1014 } else {
The intent was to accept both IPv6 and IPv4 connections and I think the
logic is trying to "fall back to IPv4-only" if IPv6 is not available.
Are you saying that we can get by with just the PF_INET6 socket assuming
we always want to accept both IPv6 and IPv4 connections? Is there any
configuration where we would not be able to create the IPv6 listening
socket in Nevada?
I'm happy to remove the second call to idm_socreate if it's superfluous.
-Peter
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
