Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:25:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:25:03 -0500 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:48396 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:24:50 -0500 Subject: Re: setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF) broken on 2.4.18? To: Raphael_Manfredi@pobox.com (Raphael Manfredi) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:39:31 +0000 (GMT) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Raphael Manfredi" at Feb 26, 2002 07:46:42 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If I can't use the returned value from getsockopt(SO_SNDBUF) to do a > setsockopt(SO_SNDBUF), then it's broken! You'll have a hard time convincing > me otherwise. I'd like to see a standards document cite for that. The behaviour we follow is not atypical for a lot of ioctls and syscalls were you ask for one size and the kernel gives you its preferred variant. In the other cases I can think of the kernel also does not lie about its preferred variant - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/