Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:14:48 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ntohll/htonll? [was: Re: ntohq/htonq?] Message-ID: <A50A53FC-3141-4393-8B32-9248A9BD13A5@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <201109141230.51827.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> <201109140747.21979.jhb@freebsd.org> <B76A2235-C31A-46B6-BB99-EC9A661D83BD@bsdimp.com> <201109141230.51827.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[changing subject to tie *ll to *q for search purposes] On Sep 14, 2011, at 9:30 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:39:31 am Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> hton64/ntoh64 is what Linux has in the kernel. htonll and ntohll is = what Solaris and AIX have. >>=20 >> So (1) I'd shy away from htonq since that's not as well established = as the other two in the OS >> (although googling suggests that many programs use it). (2) I'd = provide both htonll and hton64 >> with a note saying that hton128 is the wave of the future. >=20 > Actually, come to think of it, we use *ll rather than *q variants here = at work > as well. I'd vote for (2). The only problem I'm facing is that htonq/ntohq are well-established and heavily used within Junos. They are even exposed in the SDK. So, while I don't mind taking a slightly different route, I do need to deal with compatibility. But if I need to do that, then there's also no real reason anymore to add a 64-bit variant to FreeBSD. I need to see what is possible... Anyway: I sense a preference for a numerical suffix over any single or multi-letter suffix. --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A50A53FC-3141-4393-8B32-9248A9BD13A5>