|
Hello Rodger,
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Rodger Erickson wrote:
> Wensong,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I certainly appreciate your taking the time
> to explain the design decisions.
>
> One final (hopefully :-) thing I noticed while working with the sync
> code is that there's no byte order translation being done on information
> being passed. For things like addrs and ports that are always stored in
> network byte order this isn't a problem. However, there are other items
> like cp->protocol, cp->flags, and cp->state that are __u16 and stored in
> host-byte order. IMO these should be translated into network-byte order for
> transmission and then translated back to host-byte order by the receiver.
>
> I realize that it is unlikely that different processor architectures
> would be used for the primary and the backup directors. However, it is
> possible for this to be the case. IMO these changes should be made to
> prevent problems from occurring under a configuration that is perfectly
> legal and reasonable.
>
It is a good idea. I will do it, a couple of host-to-network translations
will not cause too much overhead anyway.
Thanks,
Wensong
|
