[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Gabe Appleton added the comment: Okay, I removed the helper functions and added some additional documentation. Does that look okay now? -- versions: +Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker __

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Sorry. Please drop helper methods but keep IPPROTO_UDPLITE, UDPLITE_SEND_CSCOV, UDPLITE_RECV_CSCOV constants. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Gabe Appleton added the comment: I just want to be explicit so I don't mess up on protocol, since I am new to this project. Does that mean that you want me to remove the helper function and put documentation in about that sockopt, or that an exception could be made in this case? --

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: We have no setsockopt() shortcut helpers. socket.setblocking() uses fcntl() internally. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Gabe Appleton added the comment: Its true that this doesnt exist at the C level, however I worry that having it purely through getsockopt() and setsockopt() would make things more confusing, so I added it as a helper function. I can remove it in lieu of documentation if that would block merg

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Adding new constants like socket.IPPROTO_UDPLITE is fine. The question is: why we need a new function? There is no set_send_checksum_coverage() on C level IIRC -- nosy: +asvetlov ___ Python tracker

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- versions: -Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https:

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

Change by Gabe Appleton : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +14088 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/14258 ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue37345] Add formal support for UDPLITE protococl

New submission from Gabe Appleton : At the moment you can definitely use UDPLITE sockets on Linux systems, but it would be good if this support were formalized such that you can detect support at runtime easily. At the moment, to make and use a UDPLITE socket requires something like the foll