svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Wed Jan 14 07:43:34 PST 2009
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>> 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
>> 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..
Well, I think that depends. If it's a SOL_SOCKET-layer option, we still need
some way for the protocol layer to either accept or veto setting the option,
depending on whether it supports it. For example, I think SPX sockets should
reject the option being set if they don't support it, so we'll need to figure
out something there to either pass down the SOL_SOCKET option explicitly, or
check with the protocol somehow as to whether or not to accept it.
Robert N M Watson
University of Cambridge
More information about the svn-src-head