Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:10:40 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet Message-ID: <49697140.30205@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901102331510.16794@fledge.watson.org> References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <d763ac660901091411x40eb8084v134f0ab2189afddb@mail.gmail.com> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794@fledge.watson.org> <d763ac660901101012icb544b1v3ff940bd39f1abb6@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901102331510.16794@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>: >> >>> 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. I think just making the name the same should be enough.. > > 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?49697140.30205>