In message <1gu3e4v.15tzljv13c2ylmM%manu@netbsd.org>,
Emmanuel Dreyfus writes:

[...]


quoted text
>Ignoring ENOBUFS is not a nice workaround for my problem. I'll have to
>wait for a resend request from receivers and I'll loose even more time
>than looping around sendto() until it does not return ENOBUFS.
>
>But I think not returning ENOBUFS makes us compliant with SUS and our
>man pages.  
>
>That said, Johnatan has a good point: the broken behavior is what many
>people have seen and expect. The idea of a fixed behavior settable
>through setsockopt may be a good idea.

Emmanuel,

As far as I can tell, the behaviour we have isn't broken at all.
Jason Thorpe also recently said he thinks the behaviour we have now
exactly matches SuSv3. (I suspect SUSv3 was carefully written to
match the BSD socket behaviour, or earlier descriptions thereof;
but that's just a guess).

So, please stop saying that NetBSD's behaviour is "broken".

You are free to work on something which (to borrow Thor Lancelot
Simon's description) is "not ... sane".  If you want to hit yourself
on the head, I guess that's your business.

But complaining that NetBSD is "broken" makes you look as if you
have poor technical literacy, in addition to, um, choosing to do
the "not ... sane" thing.

More comments on what you're trying to do, to follow.