From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 10:28:43 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B92106564A; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03CC8FC13; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:28:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E6FD46B23; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:28:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:28:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Attila Nagy In-Reply-To: <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> Message-ID: References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:28:44 -0000 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