Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:17:12 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks Message-ID: <50F483E8.2040107@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <201301141656.37175.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201301141550.13577.jhb@freebsd.org> <50F47BB8.9000409@mu.org> <201301141656.37175.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice? >> >> Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely! >> >> I think just using decimal would be more confusing than explicitly >> calling it out like: >> >> /* begin enumerated (not bitmask) socket option specifiers */ >> #define TCP_MAXSEG 0x02 /* set maximum segment size */ >> #define TCP_NOPUSH 0x04 /* don't push last block of write */ >> #define TCP_NOOPT 0x08 /* don't use TCP options */ >> #define TCP_MD5SIG 0x10 /* use MD5 digests (RFC2385) */ >> /* end enumerated socket option specifiers */ > I have a patch I'll post next which will add a new option as '3'. I think that > will make it more obvious and avoid having new options follow the old pattern. > Any objection to adding the contents of that email as a comment section? It really would help. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F483E8.2040107>