On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > If you would like connected UDP, I won't object to you implementing > it. However, I never tested whether a connected UDP socket will give > the desired semantics without extra code in the UDP transport (for > example, an ->sk_error callback). I don't think it's worth the hassle > if we have to add code to UDP that only this tiny use case would need. > OK. I'll set these patches aside until I have time to look into adding connected UDP support. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
