On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 23:02 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 15:13 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 14:23 +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > > Especially the calculation of timestamps is identicall for addresses.
> > > By creating a "base struct", we can use the same code for that, because
> > > NMPlatformIP4Address and NMPlatformIP6Address can now both be treated as
> > > NMPlatformIPAddress (and the same for routes).
> >
> > Is the only reason for the #define of the common fields so that you
> > don't have to do another level of indirection? It looks somewhat ugly
> > and my personal preference would be to just declare the base struct in
> > the functions you want to use it in and up-cast if you need the v4 or v6
> > version... kinda like we do with objects. So I certainly agree with
> > the principle, but lets see what other people say about the
> > implementation...
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> could you elaborate an what would be your preference? I don't
> understand.
Sorry :) I mean that I'm not wild about the #define of the common
fields, but I'm OK with it if others think its fine. Typically it be
something more like this:
typedef struct {
NMPlatformIPAddress p;
<ipv4 stuff>
} NMPlatformIP4Address;
typedef struct {
NMPlatformIPAddress p;
<ipv6 stuff>
} NMPlatformIP6Address;
void option1 (NMPlatformIP4Address *addr)
{
NMPlatformIPAddress *parent = (NMPlatformIP4Address *) addr;
addr->address = xxx;
}
void option2 (NMPlatformIP4Address *addr)
{
addr->p.address = xxx;
}
which is more in line with kernel/glibc style I think. It does mean a
bit more typing though.
Dan
_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
