From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 11 04:39:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F022106566B; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:39:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=julian=2559b44b0@elischer.org) Received: from smtp-outbound.ironport.com (smtp-outbound.ironport.com [63.251.108.112]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C878FC0A; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:39:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=julian=2559b44b0@elischer.org) Received: from unknown (HELO julian-mac.elischer.org) ([10.251.60.87]) by smtp-outbound.ironport.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2009 20:10:41 -0800 Message-ID: <49697140.30205@elischer.org> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:10:40 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Attila Nagy , Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:39:16 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson : >> >>> 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