> another 1.3 tree. I didn't commit to 2.0, because I forgot. :-( The
> problem is that we are checking for the wrong errno when the setsockopt
> fails. The errno we check for should never be returned by setsockopt. If
> we change the errno to the correct one (I have to look at my patch),
H
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> I am getting more than a bit anoyed by the BSD accept filters; when you
> have them in a binary; they are always on. And if the setsockopt()
> fails things bomb wiht an exit(1).
>
> Which is a bit of a pain if you move the
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 0 Change the 'exit' when the sockopt fails for SO_ACCEPTFILTER
> to a warning;.
> 1 Leave as is; but provide an AcceptFilter on/off directive
> to switch it off - if SO_ACCPETFILTER is defined.
> 2.Have AcceptFitler on/
I am getting more than a bit anoyed by the BSD accept filters; when you
have them in a binary; they are always on. And if the setsockopt()
fails things bomb wiht an exit(1).
Which is a bit of a pain if you move them between machines and/or have
kernels which (sometimes) do not have them plugged
