Date: 05 Jun 1999 23:04:18 -0500 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <86lndyc6v1.fsf@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp's message of "Sat, 05 Jun 1999 07:35:42 %2B0200" References: <54651.928560942@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 4. It would be desirable to have per socket timeouts, but would > require application changes which are unlikely to happen. Huh? I was just considering writing the patch for this. What application problems would this create? The worst thing I can see is that it would mean that changing the timeout value on a running system wouldn't affect already opened sockets. Even that may be changable by an external utility if I can think of a way to handle the locking in userland. Cheers, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lndyc6v1.fsf>