From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Jun 30 22:25:17 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA26165
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpha.xerox.com (alpha.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.93])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA26159
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <15167(4)>; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:24:34 PDT
Received: from localhost by crevenia.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <177476>; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:24:23 -0700
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org (FreeBSD-current users)
Subject: Re: socketpair bug? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jun 96 11:13:03 PDT."
             <199606271813.UAA02652@uriah.heep.sax.de> 
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:24:20 PDT
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <96Jun30.222423pdt.177476@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199606271813.UAA02652@uriah.heep.sax.de> you write:
>See also my Usenet reply: socketpair() basically needs a similar libc
>syscall wrapper like pipe().  Right now, it uses the generic syscall
>wrapper which is wrong.  (The XXX??'s can be removed again then. :)

I think the answer is the other way around -- socketpair() works as it
is and just needs the two XXX'd lines removed, no need for it to have a
wrapper like pipe().

We went through this a while ago and I don't remember the outcome
(except, of course, that I didn't commit anything, but that's probably
just because I'm lazy)

  Bill