[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140430184847.GL26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:48:47 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bits/socket.h: Define SO_RCVBUFFORCE for mips
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 07:54:26AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> 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
On further review, this value doesn't seem mips-specific, but the
also-missing SO_SNDBUFFORCE is mips-specific in value. :( So I'm just
adding both to the mips version. Cleanup can come later.
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.
