Re: New INP_ flags

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:Matthew Dillon wrote:
:>     Are you sure they've all been used.
:
:No. All lower bits (1-15) traditionally reserved for INP_ flags are used.
:>From higher bits traditionally used for IN6P_ flags, bits 16-23 are used in
:DragonFly. But AFAICS, some IN6P_ (and therefore features?) flags are just
:missing from DragonFly. For example bits 31 and 32 are in all BSD's used
:for IN6P_RFC2292 and IN6P_MTU.
:
:So, question is how much we care about compatibility with other BSD's? We
:should care about compatibility with older Dragonfly versions IMHO, so
:reordering etc is out of question unless there is VERY good reason to do
:so. It would be nice to keep flags for AF's together though, so my second
:thought was to use bit 32 for new INP_ flag and 24 for new IN6P_ flag. But
:maybe we want to use 31 and 32 bits as in other BSD's for IN6P_RFC2292 and
:IN6P_MTU?
:
:
:regards,
:
:-- 
:Hasso Tepper

     Insofar as I know the actual value used by the symbolic definitions
     do not have to be compatible between the BSDs.  We only need to
     support the symbolic definitions themselves.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>