From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ian McDonald" Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:02:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10]: Support for passive close Message-Id: <5640c7e00709052102v733a46acocaaacecc7c51dee5@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: References: <200707121520.48349@strip-the-willow> In-Reply-To: <200707121520.48349@strip-the-willow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org On 7/18/07, Gerrit Renker wrote: > > | Please note your method works perfectly fine and is an acceptable fix, > | and can go in. My method may not even work as I'm thinking out loud > | here really. > This really is appreciated since by looking at the same thing one often gets better ideas, > please see below. > > I am defending my solution on the grounds that I have verified the possible state transitions, > most signalling is in the kernel, and changes are documented. > > The main point behind this patch set is the API: with regard to closing states one now gets > the same behaviour as with TCP, i.e. the close() calls work as expected - either when called > directly, or implicitly via exit(). > OK. I'm (finally) getting back to this and after thinking some more your solution seems the best. Will go through patches individually now. Ian -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz