提交 9f4c899c 编写于 作者: T Trond Myklebust

NFS: Fix the fix to Bugzilla #11061, when IPv6 isn't defined...

Stephen Rothwell reports:

Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:

fs/built-in.o: In function `.nfs_get_client':
client.c:(.text+0x115010): undefined reference to `.__ipv6_addr_type'

Fix by moving the IPV6 specific parts of commit
d7371c41 ("Bug 11061, NFS mounts dropped")
into the '#ifdef IPV6..." section.

Also fix up a couple of formatting issues.
Signed-off-by: NTrond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
上级 01d37c42
......@@ -255,6 +255,32 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
}
return 0;
}
/*
* Test if two ip6 socket addresses refer to the same socket by
* comparing relevant fields. The padding bytes specifically, are not
* compared. sin6_flowinfo is not compared because it only affects QoS
* and sin6_scope_id is only compared if the address is "link local"
* because "link local" addresses need only be unique to a specific
* link. Conversely, ordinary unicast addresses might have different
* sin6_scope_id.
*
* The caller should ensure both socket addresses are AF_INET6.
*/
static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
const struct sockaddr *sa2)
{
const struct sockaddr_in6 *saddr1 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa1;
const struct sockaddr_in6 *saddr2 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa2;
if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&saddr1->sin6_addr,
&saddr1->sin6_addr))
return 0;
if (ipv6_addr_scope(&saddr1->sin6_addr) == IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_LINKLOCAL &&
saddr1->sin6_scope_id != saddr2->sin6_scope_id)
return 0;
return saddr1->sin6_port == saddr2->sin6_port;
}
#else
static int nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr4(const struct sockaddr_in *sa1,
const struct sockaddr_in *sa2)
......@@ -270,6 +296,12 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
return nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr4((const struct sockaddr_in *)sa1,
(const struct sockaddr_in *)sa2);
}
static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6(const struct sockaddr * sa1,
const struct sockaddr * sa2)
{
return 0;
}
#endif
/*
......@@ -279,37 +311,17 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
*
* The caller should ensure both socket addresses are AF_INET.
*/
static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr_in * saddr1,
const struct sockaddr_in * saddr2)
static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
const struct sockaddr *sa2)
{
const struct sockaddr_in *saddr1 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa1;
const struct sockaddr_in *saddr2 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa2;
if (saddr1->sin_addr.s_addr != saddr2->sin_addr.s_addr)
return 0;
return saddr1->sin_port == saddr2->sin_port;
}
/*
* Test if two ip6 socket addresses refer to the same socket by
* comparing relevant fields. The padding bytes specifically, are not
* compared. sin6_flowinfo is not compared because it only affects QoS
* and sin6_scope_id is only compared if the address is "link local"
* because "link local" addresses need only be unique to a specific
* link. Conversely, ordinary unicast addresses might have different
* sin6_scope_id.
*
* The caller should ensure both socket addresses are AF_INET6.
*/
static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6 (const struct sockaddr_in6 * saddr1,
const struct sockaddr_in6 * saddr2)
{
if (!ipv6_addr_equal(&saddr1->sin6_addr,
&saddr1->sin6_addr))
return 0;
if (ipv6_addr_scope(&saddr1->sin6_addr) == IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_LINKLOCAL &&
saddr1->sin6_scope_id != saddr2->sin6_scope_id)
return 0;
return saddr1->sin6_port == saddr2->sin6_port;
}
/*
* Test if two socket addresses represent the same actual socket,
* by comparing (only) relevant fields.
......@@ -322,11 +334,9 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
switch (sa1->sa_family) {
case AF_INET:
return nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4((const struct sockaddr_in *) sa1,
(const struct sockaddr_in *) sa2);
return nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(sa1, sa2);
case AF_INET6:
return nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6((const struct sockaddr_in6 *) sa1,
(const struct sockaddr_in6 *) sa2);
return nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6(sa1, sa2);
}
return 0;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册