Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 06:38:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 06:38:27 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:56203 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 06:38:26 -0400 From: David Schwartz To: CC: linux-kernel X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.61 (1025) - Licensed Version Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:38:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1020074594.22026.38.camel@pc-16.office.scali.no> Subject: Re: Possible bug with UDP and SO_REUSEADDR. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-ID: <20020429103823.AAA26425@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >However, I still can't see any *practical* use of having one program >(me) bind the port, deliberately share it, and another program (you) >coming along and want to share it, and then all unicast datagrams are >passed to you. Not If I haven't subscribed to any multicast addresses, >and no one is sending bcasts, there is no point of me being alive. > >Can you come up with a real life situation where this make sense? Absolutely. This is actually used in cases where you have a 'default' handler for a protocol that is built into a larger program but want to keep the option to 'override' it with a program with more sophisticated behavior from time to time. In this case, the last socket should get all the data until it goes away. DS - 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/