Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMKF1sp55sDfqmTwY3Vih6JzTDTYMJ1iYeo1Hz-+2vjoBQepFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:54:26 -0700
From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bits/socket.h: Define SO_RCVBUFFORCE for mips

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 06:43:52PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> packages like udev are using it
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...il.com>
>>
>> Upstream-Status: Pending
>> ---
>>  arch/mips/bits/socket.h |    1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/bits/socket.h b/arch/mips/bits/socket.h
>> index ba79045..2264679 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/bits/socket.h
>> +++ b/arch/mips/bits/socket.h
>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct cmsghdr
>>  #define SO_RCVBUF       0x1002
>>  #define SO_KEEPALIVE    8
>>  #define SO_OOBINLINE    256
>> +#define SO_RCVBUFFORCE  33
>>
>>  #define SO_NO_CHECK     11
>>  #define SO_PRIORITY     12
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>
> I think this is correct, but are there additional new SO_*'s that
> should be added to mips, or is this value the same as on other archs
> and perhaps not something that should be arch-specific to begin with?

I think redefining them in mips specific sockets.h is not needed. it
could use the values
from sys/socket.h

>
> 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.