From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jun 13 22:50: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from heaven.gigo.com (heaven.gigo.com [64.57.102.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6401C37B407 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 200-193-224-003-bsace7003.dsl.telebrasilia.net.br (200-193-224-003-bsace7003.dsl.telebrasilia.net.br [200.193.224.3]) by heaven.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74340B916 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1255 invoked by uid 1001); 14 Jun 2002 05:49:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20020614054920.1254.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:48:58 -0300 From: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding SO_NOSIGPIPE to -STABLE/-CURRENT References: <20020614022304.94570.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from drosih@rpi.edu on Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:48:04PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.6-PRERELEASE X-Disclaimer: I hope you find what you are looking for... in life :) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:48:04PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 11:22 PM -0300 6/13/02, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > > Similar options can be found in: > > > > - Darwin - SOF_NOSIGPIPE > > - Linux - MSG_NOSIGNAL > > - Solaris - Don't recall > > - Possibly others > > After a very quick check of include files on solaris, nothing obvious > jumps out at me... > > How is the proposed SO_NOSIGPIPE different from SOF_NOSIGPIPE or > MSG_NOSIGNAL? If the behavior is meant to be exact the same as > one of those, then should we pick the same name? They all behave the same. Since this is meant to be a socket option, I prefer SO* to non-standard naming MSG_NOSIGNAL. Darwin call it SOF_NOSIGPIPE because they use it as socket flag as opposed to a socket option such as either SO_DONTTRUNC or SO_WANTMORE. Well, Linux has it as a socket option, it looks okay as a socket option so the name begins with SO_. SO_NOSIGPIPE because it describes well its use as it does in Darwin. However, that's my opinion. I am all open to suggestions. -- Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." Computer Science Undergraduate | FreeBSD Committer | CS Developer flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message