From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 15 19:51:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E0F16A416 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:51:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outY.internet-mail-service.net (outY.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.248]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D865143CEE for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:49:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from shell.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.47.20) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:36:12 -0800 Received: from [10.251.18.229] (nat.ironport.com [63.251.108.100]) by idiom.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBFJoqLC044905; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:50:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Message-ID: <4582FC91.2030205@elischer.org> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:50:41 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Rodrigues References: <200612151201.kBFC1qEv006825@repoman.freebsd.org> <4582A1E0.1050503@freebsd.org> <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org> <20061215055704.A65183@xorpc.icir.org> <20061215145655.GA13912@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <20061215145655.GA13912@crodrigues.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net Makefile.inc sctp_sys_calls.c src/sys/sys param.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:51:33 -0000 Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:57:04AM -0800, 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). >> >> Why is it undesirable to use the same kind of overloading >> for sctp ? > > I think some of the reasons for why a new sockets API > was introduced for SCTP was outlined in: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-14.txt which says: -------------- 8. New Interfaces Depending on the system, the following interface can be implemented as a system call or library function. --------------- The latter is what I'd expect.. syscalls is 'unusual' and unique to this protocol. > > ...but I'll let Randall chime in too. :) >