From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 15 19:53:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF9C16A403 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:53:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outY.internet-mail-service.net (outY.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.248]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F7943CC6 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:51:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from shell.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.47.20) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:37:56 -0800 Received: from [10.251.18.229] (nat.ironport.com [63.251.108.100]) by idiom.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBFJr8fi048506; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:53:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Message-ID: <4582FD1C.9000501@elischer.org> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:53:00 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bruce M. Simpson" References: <200612151201.kBFC1qEv006825@repoman.freebsd.org> <4582A1E0.1050503@freebsd.org> <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org> <20061215055704.A65183@xorpc.icir.org> <4582B395.3040501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4582B395.3040501@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , Luigi Rizzo , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Randall Stewart , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net Makefile.inc sctp_sys_calls.c src/sys/sys param.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:53:29 -0000 Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> >> i think Andre's question was this: >> normally we use {set|get}sockopt() to configure the socket >> as desired for special features (e.g. multicast is one). >> >> > It already does. These are wrappers, not actual syscalls. >> Why is it undesirable to use the same kind of overloading >> for sctp ? > > An API is specified for SCTP already. Being forced to shoehorn all > possible semantics into a getsockopt()/setsockopt() call *sucks* for > serious work. why? The API says it can be implemented via a set of library entry points. How would you tell the difference? > > Regards, > BMS