Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:27:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: gnn@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sosend/soreceive consistency improvements Message-ID: <20060724012707.A44945@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <m2psfvsvd5.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> References: <20060723171734.K35186@fledge.watson.org> <m2psfvsvd5.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > At Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:57:56 +0100 (BST), > rwatson wrote: > >> Rather than continue in this "in between state", in which the uio/mbuf >> chain sosend and soreceive are reached via the protocol switch in each >> occurrence, I propose a change: sosend() and soreceive() will now be the >> formal APIs for sending and receiveing on sockets within the kernel, as is >> the case with many other so*() functions, and they will perform the >> protocol switch dereference. The existing functions are renamed to >> sosend_generic() and soreceive_generic(), and in most cases are never >> referenced by protocols since our protocol domain registration already uses >> sosend() and soreceive() as the defaults today. The new code strikes me as >> quite a bit more readable, and likely easier for socket consumers to use. >> >> Any thoughts and/or objections? > > Makes sense to me. Can we document these? That is, is there a man page in > section 9 we could add these to? I have plans to add a socket(9) man page, but because I'm still tearing things up, I've deferred doing that. I've started increasing the number of notes in uipc_socket.c in order to document some of the things that will eventually be in socket(9). Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060724012707.A44945>