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

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

> message transmission.  You yourself defined RDM to be a datagram service.
> RxRPC is not, in my opinion, a datagram service, and neither is it a stream
> service.

Message is what I should have said.

> Interestingly, searching for SOCK_RDM definitions with google shows there's
> some disagreement as to what it represents.  Some seem to thing it's connection
> oriented and some that it's connectionless, and some seem to think it's
> ordered, and some not.

Which is just fine, does it need to be one or the other. SOCK_DGRAM an be
both connection oriented or connectionless.

> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Well, I suggest SOCK_RPC, not SOCK_RXRPC.  There's no particular reason such a
> flow type has to be limited to RxRPC.

Other RPC types use normal socket types.

> I'd say that that precludes applicability on two points: firstly, RxRPC is not
> a datagram layer by the definition I provided in a previous email; and
> secondly, RxRPC *does* provide some ordering guarantees.

So you want SOCK_SEQPACKET perhaps then ?

> > What does AIX do out of interest ?
> 
> I've no way to find out what AIX does, but I suspect it simply doesn't.

Perhaps someone with AIX boxes around (say @ibm.com) could answer ?