Is there any reason the raw flags value is not exposed to the user? There might be more drivers that are using non-standard flags to communicate a certain state.

We're trying to provide a cross platform API, but for Windows RecvFlags is completely fake.

Looks like the build is failing due to missing fields for some targets. Shall I limit the new functions to target_os = "linux"?

Looks like the build is failing due to missing fields for some targets. Shall I limit the new functions to target_os = "linux"?

It's it's Linux only then yes. But it will require the all feature as well.

Should be supported on Android as well. Is dc71380 what you mean by requiring both the all feature and gating on the os?

I think MSG_CONFIRM is normally used as a flag for calling sendmsg, and not used on received messages. So not sure if I can trigger this with an end-to-end test without using SocketCAN. SocketCAN cannot be easily tested inside a docker container, as the host needs to create a virtual SocketCAN device first.

Should I add the flags to the impl std::fmt::Debug as well? https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/src/sys/unix.rs#L579-L589

I can add a test that the value is false under normal circumstances here: https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/tests/socket.rs#L685-L686

Should I add the flags to the impl std::fmt::Debug as well? https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/src/sys/unix.rs#L579-L589

I can add a test that the value is false under normal circumstances here: https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/tests/socket.rs#L685-L686

Yes to both. After that we can merge.

Should I add the flags to the impl std::fmt::Debug as well? https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/src/sys/unix.rs#L579-L589
I can add a test that the value is false under normal circumstances here: https://github.com/rust-lang/socket2/blob/master/tests/socket.rs#L685-L686

Yes to both. After that we can merge.

Already done :)

Thanks @pd0wm

Thanks for your quick feedback!