[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130114220108.GS20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:01:08 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: iproute2 and musl (netinet/tcp.h)
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:34:02PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Daniel Cegie?ka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> [2013-01-14 21:35:16 +0100]:
> > (netinet/tcp.h) - iproute2/misc/ss.c tries to use netinet/tcp.h. Do we
> > need to improve netinet/tcp.h in musl?
> >
>
> i think we should provide the TCP_* socket options
> from linux/tcp.h and hide SOL_TCP under feature
> test macros as posix only reserves TCP_ for netinet/tcp.h
Yes, this seems right; I can't find any reference to SOL_TCP being
allowed or reserved. Actually, SOL_TCP seems to be nonstandard
nonsense. The correct macro to use seems to be IPPROTO_TCP. See POSIX:
The <netinet/tcp.h> header shall define the following symbolic
constant for use as a socket option at the IPPROTO_TCP level:
TCP_NODELAY
Avoid coalescing of small segments.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/netinet_tcp.h.html
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
