[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06r8f7-jsn.ln1@chipmunk.wormnet.eu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:54:08 +0100
From: Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT
Hi,
Tim Prepscius <timprepscius@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Is SO_REUSEPORT available 2.6.ish - (or any version)?
> I've been searching for a conclusive answer to this question and can't
> find it.
>
That will be a no then:
----
alex@...k:~$ grep SO_REUSEPORT -r /usr/src/linux-2.6-stable/include/
/usr/src/linux-2.6-stable/include/asm-generic/socket.h:/* To add :#define SO_REUSEPORT 15 */
----
> (yes I know of SO_REUSEADDR, and I know the difference between this
> and *PORT, and yes I know that I *definitely* need SO_REUSEPORT, no,
> I'm unconcerned this may/may not be part of a "standard," yes I know
> it is implemented differently on different systems, yes I know there
> may be security problems, but no, I don't care about this.)
>
This really sounds like the sort of thing (for TCP/SCTP) where the
'master' process would maintain the listening socket and upon accept()
you would fork() or pass the file descriptor off to a thread. This
would make SO_REUSEPORT un-necessary and also your code would be
portable.
If you are doing things with UDP (or another datagram-esque stream) then
your master listener could pass off the incoming packets to
threads/processes trivially.
Of course this depends on what you are doing, but my opinion is that the
functionality has been unneeded so far by people in the kernel, so *I*
must be doing something wrong ;)
Cheers
--
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: "Every man has his price. Mine is $3.95."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists