TCP_KEEPIDLE vs TCPTV_KEEP_IDLE

[Gleb Smirnoff]

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 06:32:37AM -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
R> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at freebsd.org> wrote:
R> > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 06:26:14AM -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
R> > R> Thank you for that answer. I don't have the option to install FreeBSD
R> > R> 9.1. Maybe we will move to 9.1 in the future.
R> > R>
R> > R> However, I now understand the issues better. Of course that does
R> > R> complicate my proposal on Samba technical, just a little.
R> >
R> > I don't understand the proposal. Samba correctly compiles with support
R> > for the discussed socket options on those operating systems that support
R> > them. No "fixes" to Samba are required, everything works correctly.
R> 
R> Perhaps there are others out there like us who have to stick with
R> earlier versions of FreeBSD where the symbols Samba currently uses are
R> not supported.
R> 
R> In the spirit of few or no surprises for users, a small amount of
R> #ifdef stuff will work.
R> 
R> Of course, my fellow Samba team members might decide that it is not worth it.

No, small amount of ifdef stuff would not work. FreeBSD 8.0 doesn't have
these socket options, you can't bring support for them defining their values.

Even if you manage to compile samba with support for these socket options,
it will fail at runtime, getting EINVAL error from the setsockopt() system
call.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.