On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:47:01 GMT, Michael McMahon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could I get the following PR review please? It adds a new JDK specific
>> extended socket option
>> called IP_DONTFRAGMENT, which disables IP packet fragmentation in both IPv4
>> and IPv6
>> UDP sockets (NIO DatagramChannels). For IPv4 in particular, it sets the DF
>> (Dont Fragment) bit
>> in the IP header. There is no equivalent in the IPv6 packet header as
>> fragmentation is implemented
>> exclusively by the sending and receiving nodes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>
> Michael McMahon has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> fix whitespace
src/jdk.net/windows/native/libextnet/WindowsSocketOptions.c line 112:
> 110: return optval;
> 111: }
> 112: handleError(env, rv, "get option IP_DONTFRAGMENT failed");
Is there some indentation issue here?
test/jdk/jdk/net/ExtendedSocketOption/DontFragmentTest.java line 44:
> 42: StandardProtocolFamily fam = args[0].equals("ipv4") ? INET :
> INET6;
> 43: System.out.println("Family = " + fam);
> 44: testDatagramChannel(args, fam);
Shouldn't there be a testcase for when DatagramChannel is opened using the no
arg factory method `DatagramChannel.open()`?
test/jdk/jdk/net/ExtendedSocketOption/DontFragmentTest.java line 47:
> 45: try (DatagramSocket c = new DatagramSocket()) {
> 46: testDatagramSocket(c);
> 47: }
Can't you test `MulticastSocket` in exactly the same way? Why is there a
specific test method for `MulticastSocket`?
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8245
