From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [ULOGD RFC 22/30] Add set_sockbuf_len() Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:20:40 +0100 Message-ID: <47A2E468.8050502@trash.net> References: <20080130185847.693274384@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <20080130190129.323941901@kruemel.intranet.astaro.de> <47A2970D.2010208@netfilter.org> <871w7xay0q.fsf@kruemel.eitzenberger.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , heitzenberger@astaro.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Holger Eitzenberger Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:42077 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217AbYBAJUr (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:20:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <871w7xay0q.fsf@kruemel.eitzenberger.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Holger Eitzenberger wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso writes: > >> AFAIK, there's a similar function in libnfnetlink which uses >> SO_RCVBUF_FORCE instead. > > Thanks for the info. libnl also implements a similar kind of > function. At the time I completely switch that I'll of course > use that one. I guess thats also a simple patch on top. I'll see whether I can apply there patches while switching to the libnfnetlink function. I guess it shouldn't cause any conflicts since its only a single caller from what I can see.