> > With such protocols the assumption that consecutive MSG_PEEK queries
> > return the same message is invalid, thus this programming technique
> > useless. But that's a userland issue.
>
> Some stacks reorder UDP packets with higher IP types of service. I don't
> do this at the moment (seems like too much hard work for no real gain), so
> its broken for UDP ?
If MSG_PEEK is defined as showing the next packet which will be
delivered doesn't this imply that a peeked message should be
treated as "partially" delivered and locked to the head of
the queue until it is "fully" delivered?
Mike
-- .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk | | Roan Technology Ltd. | | | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 | | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 | `----------------------------------------------------------------------'