svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet
julian at elischer.org
Sat Jan 10 20:39:16 PST 2009
Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org>:
>>> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option than a
>>> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of
>>> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more
>>> compelling. We should make sure that, if we move to the socket
>>> option used on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting
>>> protocols, or confusion will result. In particular, Adrian's change
>>> only modified IPv4, not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it
>>> shouldn't be possible to set the option.
>> I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually
>> spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're
>> lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the
>> actual network behaviour is the same.
>> (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular
>> behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does
>> function as advertised.)
> If the API turns out to be effectly semantically the same, or better,
> then I think the suggestion is to entirely replace, rather than
> supplement, the socket option you just added with it. There's no point
> in having pointlessly divergent APIs where it can be avoided.
I think just making the name the same should be enough..
> Robert N M Watson
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge
More information about the svn-src-head