From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080513.153430.47909155.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080513093718.GA24185@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20080513162325.GF15306@ghostprotocols.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dlstevens@us.ibm.com, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk, dccp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: acme@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:36484 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754790AbYEMWef (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 18:34:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080513162325.GF15306@ghostprotocols.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:23:25 -0300 > What would be the problem of SOCK_DCCP being handled in glibc in such a > fashion? I don't understand why this isn't exactly what is being done. We have to update glibc to handle SOCK_DCCP correctly, just get over it :-)