From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1367692451095770190==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Mat Martineau To: mptcp at lists.01.org Subject: [MPTCP] Re: [MPTCP][PATCH v7 mptcp-next 1/7] mptcp: create the listening socket for new port Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:47:10 -0800 Message-ID: <6816d41f-9856-10f1-8b61-8ca75ac1dbc@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: 9bfd982aa08d39d84846b7fa655230dc11e91f1c.1606716547.git.geliangtang@gmail.com X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7034 --===============1367692451095770190== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 30 Nov 2020, Geliang Tang wrote: > This patch created a listening socket when an address with a port-number > is added by PM netlink. Then binded the new port to the socket, and > listened for the connection. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang > --- > net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +- > net/mptcp/protocol.h | 3 +++ > net/mptcp/subflow.c | 4 +-- > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > Another thing I don't think we discussed yet with this "extra listening = socket" approach: what do we do about socket options? Are there any options we should be concerned about on this listening = socket? Should SO_REUSEADDR be set by default? -- Mat Martineau Intel --===============1367692451095770190==--