> On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:04, Mark Sheppard <mark.shepp...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > it is good that you added the additional error code, "cover all bases", as > they say. > In any case your exception handling will inform if something has been > missed, should it occur. > So at the risk of triggering another MS curiosity, the changes look fine
+1 -Chris. > regards > Mark > > On 21/09/2016 19:45, Rob McKenna wrote: >> The link would be handy: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8159410/webrev.02/ >> >> -Rob >> >> On 21/09/16 07:44, Rob McKenna wrote: >>> I've updated the webrev here with the copyright year (thanks Christoph) and >>> extra error codes. I overlooked the codes from the old implementation of >>> tcp_ping4 above this code. These are winsock error codes which I would >>> expect IcmpSendEcho to use, but in our testing it actually returned the >>> system error codes in at least one situation: >>> >>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/ms740668%28v=vs.85%29.aspx >>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681383%28v=vs.85%29.aspx >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> On 21/09/16 06:32, Seán Coffey wrote: >>>> spotted an interesting blog on the MSDN timeout issue here : >>>> https://www.frameflow.com/ping-utility-flaw-in-windows-api-creating-false-timeouts/ >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sean. >>>> >>>> On 21/09/16 17:42, Mark Sheppard wrote: >>>>> the IcmpSendEcho series of calls come with some idiosyncrasies in that >>>>> there is a minimum timeout that they can handle >>>>> think it is about 1000msecs. isReachable can specify a finer grained >>>>> timeout hence the need for timeout check >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> On 21/09/2016 17:18, Vyom Tewari wrote: >>>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you really think this extra check is required ? >>>>>> >>>>>> if (pEchoReply->Status == IP_SUCCESS >>>>>> + && (int)pEchoReply->RoundTripTime <= timeout) I did not found any >>>>>> doc(MSDN) which explains this. I think in case of IP_SUCCESS >>>>>> "RoundTripTime" is always less than timeout. I think similar changes is >>>>>> required in Inet6Address.c as well ? Thanks, Vyom >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday 21 September 2016 08:46 PM, Rob McKenna wrote: >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to fix a bug caused by an incorrect assumption. The >>>>>>> IcmpSendEcho* calls can actually return a similar set of errors >>>>>>> regardless of whether the call itself failed or succeeded. This change >>>>>>> checks that both the call and the ping were successful. In addition to >>>>>>> that it takes a number of common failure causes into account before >>>>>>> deciding to throw an exception. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8159410/webrev.01/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Rob >
