From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 2 08:10:57 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA05469 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA05448 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id KAA26215; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:10:14 -0600 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199604021610.KAA26215@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: SO_KEEPALIVE To: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:10:14 -0600 (CST) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <1600.828426854@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 2, 96 06:34:14 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Question, stupid, nonetheless a question: > > > > Does anybody see any advantage to allowing for a way to set a systemwide > > SO_KEEPALIVE default of ON? > > make a sysctl variable for this. It's really easy. Yeah, well, that's nice :-) I wanted to know if there would be any general interest. I'm not a kernel hacker so it would take a bit of expenditure of effort on my part to figure all that out, yadda yadda yadda, and if it was something that would not make it into -current, I would opt for a quick and dirty hack. Can anyone suggest an appropriate name for such a variable? ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968