[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 01189) Re: about usagi's SO_REUSEADDR
- To: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sl_78@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: (usagi-users 01189) Re: about usagi's SO_REUSEADDR
- From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:47:49 +0900
- In-reply-to: <F14FfHg8WCe2IoIT3PA0000a714@hotmail.com>
- References: <F14FfHg8WCe2IoIT3PA0000a714@hotmail.com>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In article <F14FfHg8WCe2IoIT3PA0000a714@xxxxxxxxxxx> (at Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:17:46 +0000), "liu suifeng" <sl_78@xxxxxxxxxxx> says:
> so it is imposiable for me to use the SO_REUSEADDR for unicast address?
> Actually I change some code in the kernel, seem like it works(SO_REUSEADDR
> for unicast).
You can unless their (local address, local port, remote addres, remote port)
sets are the same.
Could you tell us your case and usage?
We believe it is theoriticaly WRONG to use SO_REUSEADDR if their sets
are the same. Don't "fix" the kernel but our code / logic.
--yoshfuji