From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 20:06:34 +0300 Message-ID: <200805132006.35010.rdenis@simphalempin.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Miller , dccp@vger.kernel.org, Gerrit Renker , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Stevens Return-path: Received: from yop.chewa.net ([91.121.105.214]:37604 "EHLO yop.chewa.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbYEMRGl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 13:06:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 may= be. But connect() is a _non-blocking_ operation which merely sets the _defa= ult_=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 en= d, it'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 gen= eric=20 name by the way? --=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/