Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:52:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:51:47 -0500 Received: from sfo-gw.covalent.net ([207.44.198.62]:7249 "EHLO hand.dotat.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:51:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:49:25 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: Alan Cox Cc: dank@alumni.caltech.edu, Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tony Finch Subject: Re: TCP_NOPUSH on FreeBSD, TCP_CORK on Linux (was: Is sendfile all that Message-ID: <20010205234925.J70673@hand.dotat.at> In-Reply-To: <3A7F3420.A3B10510@alumni.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: >> How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now? >> If it does behave identically, it might be time to standardize >> the symbolic name for this option, to make apps more portable >> between the two OS's. (It'd be nice to also standardize the >> numeric value, in the interest of making the ABI's more compatible, too.) > >That one isnt practical because of the way the implementations handle >boolean options. BSD uses bitmask based option setting for the basic >options and Linus uses switch statements No, that's only true for some of the socket-level options. For the TCP options there isn't a direct correspondance between the option number and the number of the flag in the PCB. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at "Dead! And yet there he stands!" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/