Re: getsockopt(2)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <x7d135tur5.fsf%ren.fdy2.co.uk@localhost>,
Robert Swindells  <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>
>What is wrong with your idea of updatesockopt(2) ? Or maybe call it
>getsockopt2() and only use it for the "get with extra argument" case.

I guess getsockopt2/updatesockopt is not that bad after all. Perhaps
we should go with that?

christos