Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 01:36:58 +0000 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ephemeral ports patch (fixed) Message-ID: <20080304013658.GC1015@fnop.net> In-Reply-To: <20080303231459.X43305@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200803030435.m234Z7As026508@venus.xmundo.net> <20080303001004.R37933@odysseus.silby.com> <200803031412.m23EC4WB031100@venus.xmundo.net> <20080303231459.X43305@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:23:16PM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Fernando Gont wrote: > >> At 04:11 a.m. 03/03/2008, Mike Silbersack wrote: >> >>>> Here's the same patch, but with the first ephemeral port changed from >>>> 1024 to 10000. >>> >>> Now that I've actually gone to try to apply the patch (so I can view the >>> two codepaths side by side, rather than in diff form), I'm finding that I >>> can't apply it. I think all the whitespace got stomped, either by your >>> mail program or my mail program. Can you please resent this as an >>> attachment? >> >> Sure. Please let me know if this one is okay. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> -- >> Fernando Gont >> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org >> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > Too optimistic: > > ! #define IPPORT_EPHEMERALLAST 655535 > > Otherwise the patch looks good to me. It looked a bit strange in unified > diff format, I needed to look at it in context format. (Strange, since I > usually prefer unified.) > > Rui, were you going to get this committed? Yup, I will. Regards. -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080304013658.GC1015>