From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Jan 11 09:39:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03037 for freebsd-emulation-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:39:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles234.castles.com [208.214.165.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03031 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:39:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA92400; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:35:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901111735.JAA92400@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Marcel Moolenaar cc: Brian Feldman , Mike Smith , freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sendmsg() not working?! In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:23:02 +0100." <369A0946.DA78C160@scc.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:34:59 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > The patch Brian posted does do the job, but, IMHO, is not a good basis for > further finetuning of the sendmsg and recvmsg syscalls. Especially the > copyout bothers me. Is it worth reimplementing sendmsg and recvmsg or is > everybody happy with the patch? That depends on how you describe "reimplementing". You might want to shim the generic implementations to make them more friendly to the Linux layer, but I would not think that reimplementing the bulk of the syscall in the Linux emulator would be a wise idea. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message