Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
i think Andre's question was this:
normally we use {set|get}sockopt() to configure the socket
as desired for special features (e.g. multicast is one).
It already does. These are wrappers, not actual syscalls.
Why is it undesirable to use the same kind of overloading
for sctp ?
An API is specified for SCTP already. Being forced to shoehorn all
possible semantics into a getsockopt()/setsockopt() call *sucks* for
serious work.
why? The API says it can be implemented via a set of library entry
points. How would you tell the difference?
Regards,
BMS
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
