On 04/26/2018 06:40 AM, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: > A quick question. Is it a normal practice to return a result > in setsockopt() given that the optval parameter is supposed to > be a const void *? Very good question. Andy suggested an ioctl() or setsockopt(), and I chose setsockopt() but it looks like a better choice would have been getsockopt() indeed. This might even allow future changes in "struct tcp_zerocopy_receive" Willem suggested to add code in tcp_recvmsg() but I prefer to not bloat this already too complex function. I will send a v3 using getsockopt() then, thanks !
