SCTP Discussions

Text archives Help


Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Marc Boucher <marc+sctp AT mbsi.ca>
  • To: discussion AT sctp.de
  • Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] Is the timer_list initialised?
  • Date: Thu Apr 5 11:06:01 2001
  • List-id: SCTP Discussions <discussion.sctp.de>

> > > - ain't it better to work with the sockunion struct instead of the
> > > char/byte array. At least the compiler get something more to do than
> > > generating assember code. It can warn you if you did
> > provide the wrong
> > > parameter to your function. (I like strong type checking anyway by a
> > > compiler)
> >
> > Well, we had some lengthy conversation with Wolfgang Schrüfer
> > and he felt it was better to have an sctp.h that did not include
> > any OS specific stuff (indeed it is plain C now).
> > Internally we use the struct sockunion - so there is one conversion
> > involved inside the library from string to struct sockunion
> > per new SCTP instance (plus another one in your application
> > maybe). As that should not happen very often I don't think it
> > is a performance problem.

Really?
For each UDP and SCTP packet received, the sockunion is converted to a string,
(see adl_sockunion2str() calls in adaptation.c:dispatch_event())
which would have to be eventually reparsed by the callback.
This is unnecessary overhead.

> I prefer having predefined structs.

So do I. IMHO passing string-encoded addresses, especially in callbacks,
isn't a good idea.

Marc

> Need the converted IP address anyway caus it can be included in the SUA msg.
> Doesn't really matter to me,works (and change was confined to a single file

> pffft...)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.

Top of page