On 25/08/14 05:19PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 16:39, John Groves <John@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Having a generic approach rather than a '-o' option would be fine with me. > > Also happy to entertain other ideas... > > We could just allow arbitrary options to be set by the server. It > might break cases where the server just passes unknown options down > into the kernel, which currently are rejected. I don't think this is > common practice, but still it sounds a bit risky. > > Alternatively allow INIT_REPLY to set up misc options, which can only > be done explicitly, so no risk there. > > Thanks, > Miklos I'll take a look at INIT_REPLY; if I can make sense of it, I'll try something based on that in V3. Or I may have questions... Thanks, John
