On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Yes, and I didn't really expect you to answer (at least quickly) during your
FreeBSD hiatus. So it was seeking review by chance.
Alas I found and fixed the bug myself within 2.5hrs. While not optimal, a
sign of poor prior testing and too much trust into the submitter of the
patch it wasn't an earth shattering event. Doesn't distract from the fact
that it was mea culpa in any case though.
The rapid fix was, of course, extremely appreciated :-).
For prior review of kern_socket* and netinet/tcp_* related changes it has
been on and off by various committers over the past year. If we do have a
policy of prior review required then it should be made official and codified
in MAINTAINERS and universally applied to all.
I tend to be of the view that 'maintainers' is a bad idea, and that we should
just make a regular practice of seeking review for this sort of thing,
especially as our community grows (and, let us be honest, complexity also
grows -- your observations about decades of accumulated complexity in the TCP
stack are not amiss).
I'll try to take a look at this change in detail over the weekend --
listen/accept locking is a bit of a sore point; in the original design, I
didn't have a separate accept lock, but ended up being forced to introduce it
to solve races along these lines. In the past we've also relied on the
pcbinfo lock in the protocol providing significant synchronisation during new
connection events, and as we reduce the influence of that lock, finding more
structured solutions is necessary.
Robert
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
