Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:28:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <d763ac660901091411x40eb8084v134f0ab2189afddb@mail.gmail.com> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Attila Nagy wrote: >> Well, they can be used mostly interchangably - they socket option is just >> implemented at a different layer. >> >> Porting should be a case of a simple #ifdef. :) > > I wonder what pf changes are needed.. 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. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794>