From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 23:33:17 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 D923F106566C; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:33:17 +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 AF6A58FC16; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:33:17 +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 5009846B32; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:33:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:33:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Adrian Chadd In-Reply-To: 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, Attila Nagy , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@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 23:33:18 -0000 On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote: > 2009/1/10 Robert Watson : > >> 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