Fix #1172, Check Return Value for setsockopt

[himanshu007-creator]

Describe the contribution
A clear and concise description of what the contribution is.

• Include explicitly what issue it addresses [e.g. Fixes #X]

Resolves #1172
Testing performed
Steps taken to test the contribution:

1. Build steps '...'
2. Execution steps '...'

Expected behavior changes
A clear and concise description of how this contribution will change behavior and level of impact.

• API Change: xxx (if applicable)
• Behavior Change: xxx (if applicable)
• Or no impact to behavior

System(s) tested on

• Hardware: [e.g. PC, SP0, MCP750]
• OS: [e.g. Ubuntu 18.04, RTEMS 4.11, VxWorks 6.9]
• Versions: [e.g. cFE 6.6, OSAL 4.2, PSP 1.3 for mcp750, any related apps or tools]

Additional context
Add any other context about the contribution here.

Third party code
If included, identify any third party code and provide text file of license

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
Full name and company/organization/center of all contributors ("Personal" if individual work)

• If NASA Civil Servant Employee or GSFC Contractor on SES II
  • Address/email/phone and contract/task information (if applicable) must be on file
• Else if Company
  • HAND SIGNED Company CLA must be on file (once per release): OSAL Company CLA
• Else if Individual
  • HAND SIGNED Individual CLA must be on file (once per release): OSAL Individual CLA

[ArielSAdamsNASA]

Thank you for the contribution @himanshu007-creator. I would change the commit message to follow our format of Fix #XYZ, SHORT_DESCRIPTION as seen in our contributing guide. So, the updated commit message can be Fix #1174, Check Return Value of setsockopt.

[astrogeco]

Also try to fix the format differences found in https://github.com/nasa/osal/runs/3883153364?check_suite_focus=true
you can always run clang-format on the flagged files

[astrogeco]

CCB:2021-11-03 Need to re-review

[himanshu007-creator]

Hi @astrogeco, any updated on this PR status?

[skliper]

See comments in #1172 (comment). @dmknutsen @dzbaker now manage the repo.

[dzbaker]

Will review at next CCB to consider closing PR.

[jphickey]

I don't see what this achieves here - it's calling setsockopt, and if successful, calls setsockopt again with the same option?

As noted in the comments, its OK if the call to setsockopt fails, maybe the implementation doesn't support that option or something - but the connection will still work without it, so there is no need to do full checking on this call, as there is no recovery or alternate action required if it fails.

Recommend closing this PR without merge.

[dzbaker]

CCB 20 October 2022: Agreed to close without merging.