Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #2]

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:11:41, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I know what they are; and I don't think that what's available  
>> covers it.
>>
>>> and use a proper standard socket type.
>>
>> Assuming that that list is exhaustive...
>
> SOCK_RDM seems to match perfectly well here. The point isn't to  
> enumerate everything in the universe the point is to find "works  
> like" parallels good enough to avoid more special casing.

IMHO the problem with classifying RxRPC as a "reliable datagram"  
socket is that even an atomic unidirectional communication isn't a  
single datagram, it's at least 3; there is shared connection state  
and security context on both sides which pertains to a collection of  
independent and possibly simultaneous RxRPC calls.  From the digging  
around that I did in the kernel socket code a while ago I don't see a  
cleaner way of implementing it than a new SOCK_RXRPC.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett