Robert Watson wrote:
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.
I think just making the name the same should be enough..
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"
