Re: TCP vs urgent data [was Re: poll(): IN/OUT vs {RD,WR}NORM]

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

On 2024-05-29 16:54, Mouse wrote:
> > But reading RFC 959, there is no mention of using urgent data under
> > any circumstances.
>
> No _explicit_ mention.  It's there by reference.
>
> > What that RFC says about aborting is:
>
> > [...]
> >         2. User system sends the Telnet "Synch" signal.
>
> This involves setting URG.  Read the telnet spec's description of the
> SYNCH operation (the top of page 9 of RFC854 is a good starting point).

Ah. Didn't bother digging deep enough this time. Fair enough. :-)

> See also SO_OOBINLINE, SIOCATMARK, and SS_RCVATMARK.  I am sorely
> tempted to try to rip out the OOB botch and design a socket interface
> to the urgent pointer that isn't so badly broken, but I doubt I'd
> actually find any use for the latter.  I might rip out the OOB stuff
> just to find and fix anything trying to use it, though.

I think ripping it out would be the right thing. And I suspect very 
little would notice. And just pretend the sun is shining and continue 
running would probably work for those who even try using it.

  Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol