On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:05:09 GMT, Man Cao <m...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Could anyone review this bug fix for ipv6-only system? See >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293842 for detailed description of this >> bug. >> >> Ideally, the `socket(PF_INET6, ...)` or `socket(PF_INET, ...)` call should >> depend on the value of `ipv6_available()`. However, this is only easy to do >> in net_util_md.c. Without checking `ipv6_available()` in >> <Linux|MacOSX>SocketOptions.c, I'm not sure if it is possible for ipv6 and >> ipv4 sockets to differ in the options they support. >> >> For example, for a system with both ipv6 and ipv4, if ipv6 supports >> TCP_KEEPIDLE but ipv4 does not, then there might be a problem to always >> report TCP_KEEPIDLE as supported. >> >> I noticed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8290349 added "isIPv6" >> parameter to a few functions in <Linux|MacOSX>SocketOptions.c. However, it >> is not applicable to the `socketOptionSupported()` function. This change is >> more similar to the >> `Java_jdk_net_MacOSXSocketOptions_ipDontFragmentSupported0()` function. >> >> -Man > > Man Cao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit > since the last revision: > > Address comments
> /integrate The changes that you integrated aren't the same as the changes that were reviewed. What you have is okay but if you make changes in response to reviewer feedback then you should really wait to see if there are comments on the changes. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10278
