Strangeness in 842 Fix

[Hal Murray]

> If the values are identical, then it's not functionally incorrect, but
> it's certainly conceptually incorrect to compare an SO_* value to a
> cmsg_type field.  And if the values are identical, it wouldn't change the
>  behavior to use the correct name. 

Sorry, I guess my previous message wasn't clear.  Let me try again.

I tried what you expect.  It didn't work.  The reason it didn't work is 
because SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD isn't defined, either on the reporter's system 
or on my reasonably current version of Linux.

Poking around, I found that SCM_foo is defined by something like:
  #define SCM_foo SO_foo
So I changed the code to use SO_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD in the 2 places where it 
should use SCM_TIMESTAMPNS_OLD
That also matched the debugging printout.

What I forgot to do was put a comment in the code.  Sorry.  I'll do that 
after the release.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.