From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VML5F-0001be-Nz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:58:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VML57-0006XL-Aa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:58:33 -0400 Received: from [2a03:4000:1::4e2f:c7ac:d] (port=41836 helo=v220110690675601.yourvserver.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VML57-0006X6-4F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:58:25 -0400 Message-ID: <5239DBA8.8070608@weilnetz.de> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:58:16 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1379341429-29141-1-git-send-email-ottlik@fzi.de> <52371BCB.4090004@redhat.com> <52371F58.1030303@fzi.de> In-Reply-To: <52371F58.1030303@fzi.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/5] Do not set SO_REUSEADDR on Windows List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sebastian Ottlik Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Jan Kiszka Am 16.09.2013 17:10, schrieb Sebastian Ottlik: > On 16.09.2013 16:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 16/09/2013 16:23, Sebastian Ottlik ha scritto: >>> - Added the silent flag to socket_set_fast_reuse controlling error >>> reporting >>> One location where SO_REUSEADDR was set would report errors if >>> setting the >>> option failed. Keeping the reporting code there would be somewhat >>> unclean, so >>> I moved it to socket_set_fast_reuse. A side effect of this was >>> that the error >>> reporting was added for all locations that now use >>> socket_set_fast_reuse. Here >>> a new flag is added to control error reporting, which means this >>> patchset >>> won't change QEMU behaviour (except for not setting SO_REUSEADDR >>> on Windows). >> Is there actually a case where setting SO_REUSEADDR could fail? >> >> Paolo > Yes, but its very unlikely. E.g. the first parameter is not a valid > socket. > If failures only happen when something is very wrong (like an invalid socket id), an assertion might be better, and we could remove the 'silent' parameter. Stefan