Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:23:13 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@freebsd.org>, "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net Makefile.inc sctp_sys_calls.c src/sys/sys param.h Message-ID: <45831241.6010007@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200612151551.31355.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200612151201.kBFC1qEv006825@repoman.freebsd.org> <4582A6C9.8010009@FreeBSD.org> <4582FB5A.4010208@elischer.org> <200612151551.31355.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 15 December 2006 14:45, Julian Elischer wrote: >> 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. >>> >>> See Section 9.3-9.12, UNIX Network Programming Vol 1 3e for more info. >> >> generally we would use socket ops or ioctls for this sort of thing.. >> syscalls is not how they would normally be done.... > > I'll give a free paper cookie to the first person to actually go _read_ the > committed code and notice that, *tada*, aside from the sctp_send*(), and > sctp_recvmsg() functions, these are indeed library wrapper functions around > getsockopt() and setsockopt(). > *blush* it was the fact that they SAID they were syscalls that tripped me up. I'll go shut up now..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45831241.6010007>