Hello and thank you for the feedback! On нд, 2015-11-15 at 19:16 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > SO_REUSEPORT is a pretty recent addition. Wouldn't this break build > with older header files? As such, this should probably be protected > with #ifdef SO_REUSEPORT or something similar. Yes, SO_REUSEPORT is indeed a fairly new addition to Linux. I could protect it with an ifdef or I could just use SO_REUSEADDR. If I understand correctly there is little difference between the two with regards to multicast (with the exception of the UID checking for SO_REUSEPORT). Having said that, I have not tested SO_REUSEADDR yet. I will and depending on the results will either submit a new version with SO_REUSEADDR or one with an ifdef around the setsockopt invocation. > It sounds like it would be safe to ignore the error and continue to > get the existing behavior. Yes, it would be safe to continue. Should I make it just log a MSG_WARNING and carry on instead? -- Regards, P. _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
