Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 23:35:09 -0700 From: "Justin C. Walker" <justin@apple.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: SO_RCVTIMEO values Message-ID: <200005100635.XAA00693@walkeridsl1.apple.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, all, I pawed through the archives looking for 'SO_RCVTIMEO' and 'sb_timeo', and couldn't find anything of interest (a lot of hits on mail from folks at 'sb.net', tho :-}). Currently, the sockbuf struct has a 'short' (sb_timeo) to hold a timeout value, which, given the definition of SO_RCVTIMEO, works out to about 227 ticks (for us), which isn't that long. A few of my 'customers' are grousing about this, so I thought I'd ask. Is there a reason to keep this value as a short? There's the obvious ones of binary compatibility (for kernel plug-ins, at least), and "that's the way it's always been done", but I don't see any good ones. I'm interested in what might have transpired in the past, if anyone has brought this up before (it's mentioned in Stevens' "Illustrated, V2" book). Thanks, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | Men are from Earth. Apple Computer, Inc. | Women are from Earth. 2 Infinite Loop | Deal with it. Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005100635.XAA00693>