Re: SO_RCVLOWAT?

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 21:36:38 +0000 (GMT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Ideas for abstracting driver IO from bus implementation?"
Previous message: David Hinds: "Re: Ideas for abstracting driver IO from bus implementation?"

> It's anoying that it defined but never used. Some programs try to use it
> if it's defined, and the get an error. I think either the define should
> be removed, or something done with it.

POSIX 1003.1g requires that it is present, that it has a meaningful value
on getsockopt (it does) and it optionally may be settable. If you dont like
that argue with the standards committee.

2.2.x meets the spec

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Ideas for abstracting driver IO from bus implementation?"
Previous message: David Hinds: "Re: Ideas for abstracting driver IO from bus implementation?"