That is an option as well. I am travelling this week and will get back to this first thing next week.
A. On 24 July 2017 05:17:25 CEST, Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >On 2017年07月21日 12:25, Anton Ivanov wrote: >> >> >> On 21/07/17 04:55, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2017年07月21日 03:12, anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> This addresses comments so far except Eric's suggestion to use >>>> InetSocketAddressBase. If I understand correctly its intended use, >>>> it will not be of help for protocols which have no port (raw >>>> sockets - GRE, L2TPv3, etc). >>>> >>>> It also includes a port of the original socket.c transport to >>>> the new UDST backend. The relevant code is ifdef-ed so there >>>> should be no effect on other systems. >>> >>> This looks sub-optimal. If you want to do this, I would rather >>> suggest you just extend the socket dgram backend like what udst did >now. >> >> Apologies, do you mean extend it further to handle the tcp form? > >Not that far, since you try to convert net_dgram_socket_info, I'm >thinking just do the all udst in net_dgram_socket. For recvmmsg you can > >have transport specific callback for this. > >Thanks -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
