t;>>> The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
>>>>> currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However,
>>>>> socket
>>>>> options are never masked together, they are used as a simple enumeration
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:57:23 am Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 01/16/13 06:16, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:49:33 am Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> >> On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> The constants used for TCP and UDP socket o
On 01/16/13 06:16, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:49:33 am Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>> On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
>>> currently defined as hex values that ar
On 14 January 2013 15:50, John Baldwin wrote:
> Using a bitmask forces us to run out of bits and makes it
> harder for vendors to try to use a high range of values for local custom
> options (hoping that they never conflict with a new option value added in
> stock FreeBSD).
We should explicitly d
On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:17:12 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice?
> >>
> >> Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely!
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:49:33 am Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote:
> > The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
> > currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket
> > opt
On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote:
> The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
> currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket
> options are never masked together, they are used as a simple enumeration of
> discrete va
Change "Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks" to "Don't
infer TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks"
- M
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, Janua
On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice?
Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely!
I think just using decimal would be more confusing than explicitly
calling it
On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice?
>
> Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely!
>
> I think just using decimal would be more confusing than explicitly
> calling it out like:
>
> /* begin enumer
3 3:50 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket
options are never masked together, they are used as a simple enumeration of
discrete values. Using a bitmask forces u
The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are
currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket
options are never masked together, they are used as a simple enumeration of
discrete values. Using a bitmask forces us to run out of bits and
You may want or you may not want the UDP checksum,
depending on what sort of error checking exists in the
overlying protocol. This needs to be determined on a
protocol by protocol, per socket, since some protocols
might want it and others might not. It must be the
application programmers choice and
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 03:43:33PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> FreeBSD ought to add per-socket socket options to
> allow a programmer to turn on and off the don't
> fragment bit for UDP and the UDP checksum, on a per
> socket basis.
Why? Sure, it would be easy enough to do, but why exactly
FreeBSD ought to add per-socket socket options to
allow a programmer to turn on and off the don't
fragment bit for UDP and the UDP checksum, on a per
socket basis.
This, at least I would think, would be very easy for
someone knowledgable in the networking implementation
to implement.
Thank you
15 matches
Mail list logo
