Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+IPV6\:\s+note\s+on\s+shared\s+socket\s+options\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hill <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:37:39 +0900 (JST)
There're several socket options for multicast shared between IPv4 and IPv6. Add a note that some range is already used for them. (Alternatevely, we could define other names like this: /* bla, bla ..
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00056.html (8,728 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:49:51 -0800
These are defined by draft-ietf-magma-msf-api-03.txt to be in netinet/in.h (no place else). What's the advantage of adding another copy in in6.h (which currently isn't used by anything)? Portable us
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00068.html (10,170 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:09:55 +0900 (JST)
(I assume you're talking about the "alternatives.") Kernel do not use netinet/*.h. My main point is, do not let people (or myself) forget reserved (or used) range. So, it is enough for me to add a co
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00078.html (9,591 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:02:15 -0700
I see what you mean now; I agree. I'm not sure all of the other socket options for each of v4 and v6 appear in a single file, either; they definitely aren't all grouped so you can tell they come from
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00081.html (8,424 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: s@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:25:29 +0200 (EET)
FWIW, this is already RFC 3678, so it might make sense to check whether there have been changes since the draft version implemented. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00083.html (10,536 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:21:09 -0800
Applied, thanks Yoshfuji. As others noted, this in kernel internal headers, our own namespace, and it's documentation so it's fine.
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00085.html (8,190 bytes)

7. [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:37:39 +0900 (JST)
Hello. There're several socket options for multicast shared between IPv4 and IPv6. Add a note that some range is already used for them. (Alternatevely, we could define other names like this: /* bla,
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00797.html (8,728 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:49:51 -0800
Yoshifuji-san, These are defined by draft-ietf-magma-msf-api-03.txt to be in netinet/in.h (no place else). What's the advantage of adding another copy in in6.h (which currently isn't used by anything
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00809.html (10,211 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:09:55 +0900 (JST)
(I assume you're talking about the "alternatives.") Kernel do not use netinet/*.h. My main point is, do not let people (or myself) forget reserved (or used) range. So, it is enough for me to add a co
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00819.html (9,762 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:02:15 -0700
I see what you mean now; I agree. I'm not sure all of the other socket options for each of v4 and v6 appear in a single file, either; they definitely aren't all grouped so you can tell they come from
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00822.html (8,465 bytes)

11. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:25:29 +0200 (EET)
FWIW, this is already RFC 3678, so it might make sense to check whether there have been changes since the draft version implemented. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00824.html (10,601 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:21:09 -0800
Applied, thanks Yoshfuji. As others noted, this in kernel internal headers, our own namespace, and it's documentation so it's fine.
/archives/netdev/2004-02/msg00826.html (8,272 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu