Re: Proposal: killpeer(2)

[manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus)]

Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:

> But this just highlights that SOCK_DGRAM isn't quite right for many uses
> of unix domain sockets anyway. What is really wanted is a
> connection-oriented, record-based socket.  I am not sure but I think
> SOCK_SEQPACKET is supposed to be for this kind of thing.

I need SOCK_DGRAM here because packet exchange needs to be atomic (see
CVS log for src/usr.sbin/perfused/msg.c 1.5-1.6). I considered
SOCK_SEQPACKET, but it is broken enough to be unusable.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu%netbsd.org@localhost