From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:06:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Message-Id: <200805132006.35010.rdenis@simphalempin.com> List-Id: References: <20080513072853.GB4514@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080513072853.GB4514@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:59:35 David Stevens, vous avez =E9crit=A0: > Well, SOCK_STREAM/IPPROTO_DCCP then. :-) But it isn't really that > either, as Remi said. > If you do a connect() on a UDP socket, it doesn't cease to > be a SOCK_DGRAM socket, so I don't really care about that distinction, > but if others do, that's ok with me. There are ACKs here, too, so maybe. But connect() is a _non-blocking_ operation which merely sets the _default_= =20 destination (you can still sendto() someone else). Using socket types blindly may also break applications using=20 getsockopt(SO_TYPE), if they exists (I think I wrote one once...) to=20 determine how to use a socket. SOCK_DCCP was perhaps a bad idea, but SOCK_DGRAM seems worse. In the end, i= t's=20 more a matter of patching libc getaddrinfo than changing the kernel API=20 anyway. Did AIX not have a similar socket type as DCCP under a more generic= =20 name by the way? --=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/