Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Alexandru Arion wrote: Tried it on fresh install of 5.4: compiled the source locally, run, got error "Protocol not available". Same code works on Linux. By replacing SO_ACCEPTCONN with SO_REUSEADDR, or any other option that appears in the manual page for 5.4, the program works correctly. Bruce,

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Alexandru Arion
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:36 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > Alexandru Arion wrote: > > > > Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this > > leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking > > the returned value, for now. > > > Erm. It looks l

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Bruce M. Simpson wrote: Manpage diff attached. Mailman ate your homework. :/ My bad. Committed. BMS ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Vlad GALU wrote: Erm. It looks like it's implemented in 5.4 as well, although you might have mentioned in your original mail you were working with a legacy version of FreeBSD. :^) http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=RELENG54&i=SO_ACCEPTCONN Manpage diff attached. Mailman ate your homework.

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Vlad GALU
On 3/8/07, Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alexandru Arion wrote: > > Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this > leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking > the returned value, for now. > Erm. It looks like it's implemente

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Alexandru Arion wrote: Thanks for both suggestions. Since I'll support version 5.4 and up, this leaves me to using the workaround implied by calling accept and checking the returned value, for now. Erm. It looks like it's implemented in 5.4 as well, although you might have mentioned in your

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-08 Thread Alexandru Arion
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 19:34 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > Alexandru Arion wrote: > > Is there an equivalent in FreeBSD to the SO_ACCEPTCONN option for > > getsockopt(), available in Linux? It doesn't actually has to be an > > option for getsockopt(), just a way to determine if a socket has been

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-07 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Alexandru Arion wrote: Is there an equivalent in FreeBSD to the SO_ACCEPTCONN option for getsockopt(), available in Linux? It doesn't actually has to be an option for getsockopt(), just a way to determine if a socket has been marked to accept connections with listen(). SO_ACCEPTCONN appears t

Re: SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-07 Thread Vlad GALU
On 3/7/07, Alexandru Arion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I'm rather new here, so excuses in advance if the question is out of topic. Is there an equivalent in FreeBSD to the SO_ACCEPTCONN option for getsockopt(), available in Linux? It doesn't actually has to be an option for getsockopt(), jus

SO_ACCEPTCONN equivalent

2007-03-07 Thread Alexandru Arion
Hi, I'm rather new here, so excuses in advance if the question is out of topic. Is there an equivalent in FreeBSD to the SO_ACCEPTCONN option for getsockopt(), available in Linux? It doesn't actually has to be an option for getsockopt(), just a way to determine if a socket has been marked to acce