Re: named vs 2.5.64-mm5

[jjs]

So, the SO_BSDCOMPAT messages are in all
likelihood unrelated to the problems I'm seeing
with bind-9.2.1 under 2.5.6x-recent kernels...

I guess I'll have to turn up the debugging on
bind and see if anything unusual pops up -

Joe

David S. Miller wrote:

>On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 11:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
>  
>
>>The changelog has:
>>
>># --------------------------------------------
>># 03/03/08      [e-mail]        1.1083
>># [NET]: Nuke SO_BSDCOMPAT.
>># --------------------------------------------
>>
>>Maybe James can tell us what is going on here.
>>
>>We should at least place a cap on the number of times that message
>>is printed.
>>    
>>
>
>Feel free to send a patch for that.
>
>SO_BSDCOMPAT has had ZERO side effects since 2.0.x, and it's been
>thus scheduled to be removed for years.  It was merely a binary
>state passed in and out of the kernel to the user and had no effect
>on socket behavior at all.
>
>Any application still referencing this ancient thing either expects
>some kind of different behavior from setting SO_BSDCOMPAT non-zero,
>or really doesn't rely on anything at all.
>
>Since SO_BSDCOMPAT has had zero side effects for 5 or so years, this
>means that the safe change is to remove all references to SO_BSDCOMPAT
>that exist in any application.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [e-mail]
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>