[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
