On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:38:45 +0200, Christoph Viethen <christoph.viethen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Author: viethen Date: Tue Apr 5 04:38:45 2011 New Revision: 2518 Log: change definition of the ip_bounds type to remove two shortcomings: a) previously, none of the bounds values (being IPv4 addresses, stored in a binary form) came with any qualification as to their validity; there is no way to tell whether an IPv4 address, stored in a binary form, is valid (for instance: has just been read from a config file), sinceany four-byte value may look like a valid IPv4 address (even 0.0.0.0 mightbe a valid bounds value, depending on definition); --> add a flag to address this
Good catch! You could probably have used an invalid range to indicated this too, i.e. lower bound = 0xffffffff and upper bound = 0 (and set only if a valid entry was read), but our bit budget is not too tight I think.
+struct ip_bound {
+ mac2ip_ipv4_t bound;
+ _Bool valid;
+};
+
Could the standard bool type from <stdbool.h> be used here?
typedef struct ip_bounds {
- /*
- * lower client's ip bound := 0
- * upper client's ip bound := 1
- * lower service's ip bound := 2
- * upper service's ip bound := 3
- */
- mac2ip_ipv4_t bound[4];
+ struct ip_bound lower_client;
+ struct ip_bound upper_client;
+ struct ip_bound lower_service;
+ struct ip_bound upper_service;
} ip_bounds;
/*
Would it make sense to declare struct ip_range, to reduce clutter even more?
-- This is the pisa developer mailing list. Please also subscribe to the main pisa list at: //www.freelists.org/list/pisa
