| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPTOS_LOWDELAY in netinet/ip.h is incorrect?? |
| From: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:17:00 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | Candela Technologies |
| References: | <3B7748B0.C897121A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010813.071436.74751236.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3B77F5B8.B43EA7CD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010813.084638.41644986.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
"David S. Miller" wrote: > > From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:43:52 -0700 > > I wasn't passing values to setsockopt in network byte order, but > it doesn't look like I should: Do you agree? > > Ummm... "byte order" doesn't matter when you're passing in > just a byte. :-) I was passing a whole integer. I will try passing in just a single byte to see if that changes anything. Maybe an addition could be made to the ip man page to describe the different things that void* should be for different get/setsockopt calls? If there is such a thing, I couldn't find it... -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Ben_Greear@xxxxxxxxxx> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: IPTOS_LOWDELAY in netinet/ip.h is incorrect??, Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPTOS_LOWDELAY in netinet/ip.h is incorrect??, Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IPTOS_LOWDELAY in netinet/ip.h is incorrect??, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPTOS_LOWDELAY in netinet/ip.h is incorrect??, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |