Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:33:29 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: "David G. Andersen" <danderse@cs.utah.edu>, <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Changing socket buffer timeout to a u_long? Message-ID: <20021121153154.M44884-100000@patrocles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211211200420.4708-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, David G. Andersen wrote: > > > Are there compelling reasons not to change the socket buffer > > timeout to a u_long from a u_short? This variable stores > > the number of ticks before the socket operation times out. > > > > -Dave (not on -hackers anymore, please CC) > > I can see this in -current. > In -stable I'm not sure of the ramifications. It might screw up any > proprietary loadable protocols. I Think there are a couple of them. The change sounds like a good idea, if we intend to keep socket timeouts useful. So that we don't get into binary compatibility issues with 5.0, the change should probably be made soon... Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021121153154.M44884-100000>