From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 22:54:23 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F32213 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:54:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5608FC1B for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37300 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2012 00:25:56 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Nov 2012 00:25:56 -0000 Message-ID: <50B54492.5040100@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:54:10 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson Subject: Re: svn commit: r243627 - head/sys/kern References: <201211272004.qARK4qS8047209@svn.freebsd.org> <50B54180.5020608@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:54:23 -0000 On 27.11.2012 23:48, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> On 27.11.2012 23:35, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> Andre.. this breaks incoming connections. TCP is immediately reset and never even gets to the >>> listener process. You need to back out of fix this urgently please. >> >> I just found out and fixed it. Sorry for the breakage. > > I'd like to see a much more thorough use of "Reviewed by:" in socket and TCP-related commits -- this > is very sensitive code, and a second pair of eyes is always valuable. Post-commit review is not a > substitute. Looking back over similar changes in the socket code over the last two years, I see > that almost all have reviewers, so I think it would be reasonable to consider it mandatory for these > subsystems at this point. The good news is that we have lots of people with expertise in it. Good to see you becoming more active again. :-) And yes, you have a point there. -- Andre