On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote:
2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwat...@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.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
