Bind to a list of Network Interfaces

[waahm7]

Description of changes:

• Updates the connection manager to take a list of network interface names to distribute the connections.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 26.08696% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.32%. Comparing base (079ccfd) to head (3f123bd).

Files	Patch %	Lines
source/connection_manager.c	26.08%	17 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #471      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.42%   79.32%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines       11575    11597      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits         9194     9199       +5     
- Misses       2381     2398      +17     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[graebm]

Just have users pass a normal-ass C-array, and separate length.

Suggested change

	const struct aws_array_list *network_interface_names_list;
	const struct aws_byte_cursor *network_interface_names_array;
	size_t num_network_interface_names;

There's already precedent for this, see a few lines up:

const struct aws_http2_setting *initial_settings_array;
size_t num_initial_settings;

It's simpler for everyone to just use vanilla C arrays. Most uses of this will be in language bindings, and most other languages have their own easier-to-use way to create an array. C++ users can do: std::vector<aws_byte_cursor> names and pass it like names.data(), names.size(). C users can still use aws_array_list if they want, and pass a pointer to the first item. Or simply use aws_mem_calloc().

[waahm7]

Thanks, in S3, the precedence is array list for checksum algorithms list. I debated between char *[16] and aws_array_arraylist, but aws_byte_cursor * seems much nicer. I will update it to that.

[graebm]

trivial: _list makes me think aws_linked_list

Suggested change

	struct aws_array_list network_interface_names_list;
	struct aws_array_list network_interface_names;

[graebm]

debatable: maybe raise an error if both are set? instead of silently ignoring one of them?

[waahm7]

Thanks, updated.