Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:39:17 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net Makefile.inc sctp_sys_calls.c src/sys/sys param.h Message-ID: <4582B395.3040501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20061215055704.A65183@xorpc.icir.org> References: <200612151201.kBFC1qEv006825@repoman.freebsd.org> <4582A1E0.1050503@freebsd.org> <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org> <20061215055704.A65183@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Regards,
BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4582B395.3040501>