On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:28:24PM -0900, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:42 PM Vitaliy Makkoveev <m...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > bluhm@ pointed, that many KASSERT()s are not welcomed, so I didn't > > insert them into newly introduced handlers. Anyway except the tcp(4) > > protocol, `so_pcb' cant be NULL here. But the socket lock assertion > > looks reasonable. > > > > Some unp_*() functions could be merged with newly introduced uipc_*(), > > but I want to do this after (*pru_usrreq)() split finished. > > > > Having multiple PROTO_bind() routines that just return EOPNOTSUPP seems > like overkill to me. I think I would tend to just have the pru_bind() > inline do a NULL test and return EOPNOTSUPP if it is and leave the callback > NULL for all those protocols,
I think a generic return(EOPNOTSUPP) in pru_bind() is good. > but I could also see having a single > prubind_eopnotsupp() (or whatever you think is a clear name) > implementation in some sys/kern/ file which could then be used by all the > protocols that don't implement it. I am not a fan of generic stubs. bluhm
