Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:57:04 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net Makefile.inc sctp_sys_calls.c src/sys/sys param.h Message-ID: <20061215055704.A65183@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org>; from bms@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 01:44:41PM %2B0000 References: <200612151201.kBFC1qEv006825@repoman.freebsd.org> <4582A1E0.1050503@freebsd.org> <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 01:44:41PM +0000, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >
> > What makes these sctp_* syscalls so special as opposed to their
> > generic and protocol agnostic counterparts?
> They're used for operations which do not have a direct correspondence in
> the existing functions, i.e. connecting to multihomed peers, and dealing
> with one-to-many sockets.
i think Andre's question was this:
normally we use {set|get}sockopt() to configure the socket
as desired for special features (e.g. multicast is one).
Why is it undesirable to use the same kind of overloading
for sctp ?
cheers
luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061215055704.A65183>