> From: Stefan Grefen
>> From: Duncan McEwan
>> I think Stefan's point was not that the facility already existed, but that the
>> interface existed (for iso sockets) and therefore the "right" solution would
>> be
>> to extend that interface to apply to ip sockets, rather than invent a new 
>> ioctl
>> to do the job.  If my interpretation was wrong, just ignore me :-)
>
>This is the correct interpretation. 
>I think having more than interface for the same basic thing is bad.
>The eager sockets are doing excatly what the ISO protocols are doing, just
>dequeing the request without sneding an ack/nack to the other site.
>BTW. I had a look at this before, and I think the code is already in the
>generic socket-code. All that is needed is a change in tcp_usrreq, to establish
>or reject the connection as needed.

granted, i haven't looked at current code (but i will soon :), but i
think it's a little more than just a "change in tcp_usrreq" since in
the code i'm reading (1.2), tcp_input() does all the handling of
sockets in the semi-opened state.  a lot of the hacery i'm doing is in
there.  the rest (a little in kern/sys_socket.c to dispatch the
ioctl(), two bits in netinet/tcp_usrreq.c to handle the setsockopt()
and getsockopt(), and three #defines and a prototype in netinet/tcp.h,
netinet/tcp_var.h, and sys/sockio.h) is miniscule.

>If don't want to change things there, I offer to do it.

most of what i planned to do is now done.  all i have to do is "port"
it to current in order to make it the least bit useful...

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
andrew@echonyc.com (TheMan)        * "ah!  i see you have the internet
codewarrior@daemon.org                               that goes *ping*!"
warfare@graffiti.com      * "information is power -- share the wealth."