Em Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:34:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:06:34PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont escreveu: > > Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:59:35 David Stevens, vous avez écrit : > > > Well, SOCK_STREAM/IPPROTO_DCCP then. :-) But it isn't really that > > > either, as Remi said. > > > If you do a connect() on a UDP socket, it doesn't cease to > > > be a SOCK_DGRAM socket, so I don't really care about that distinction, > > > but if others do, that's ok with me. There are ACKs here, too, so maybe. > > > > But connect() is a _non-blocking_ operation which merely sets the _default_ > > destination (you can still sendto() someone else). > > > > Using socket types blindly may also break applications using > > getsockopt(SO_TYPE), if they exists (I think I wrote one once...) to > > determine how to use a socket. > > > > SOCK_DCCP was perhaps a bad idea, but SOCK_DGRAM seems worse. In the end, it's > > more a matter of patching libc getaddrinfo than changing the kernel API > > anyway. Did AIX not have a similar socket type as DCCP under a more generic > > name by the way? > > /me feels Deja Vu :-) > > Lemme dig the URL for the discussion where SOCK_DCCP was discussed and > AIX was summoned, etc :-) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dccp/current/msg01540.html While discussing with Nishida-san, the NetBSD DCCP guy. - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
