From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 23:59:15 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 4165965D; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:59:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDE58FC12; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:59:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.119] (host86-146-118-26.range86-146.btcentralplus.com [86.146.118.26]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC5D146B2C; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:59:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r243627 - head/sys/kern Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <50B54CE0.6080008@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:59:12 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A12C740-1D72-4D30-B663-47A37AAC2FF3@FreeBSD.org> References: <201211272004.qARK4qS8047209@svn.freebsd.org> <50B54180.5020608@freebsd.org> <50B54492.5040100@freebsd.org> <956CE44A-BA0F-4FE4-AA38-F4B90C85ECBA@FreeBSD.org> <50B54CE0.6080008@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) 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 23:59:15 -0000 On 27 Nov 2012, at 23:29, Andre Oppermann 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I just found out and fixed it. Sorry for the breakage. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>=20 >>> Good to see you becoming more active again. :-) And yes, >>> you have a point there. >>=20 >> Yes -- this is only about three weeks old, however; for the prior = six-twelve months, I've been fairly non-existent in FreeBSD-land due to = outside obligations :-). >=20 > Just saw that I did indeed send you a review request three weeks ago. = ;-) > At the end of a rather long email though. Yes, indeed -- no patch was attached, and it followed quite a long = e-mail on your plans to rewrite the TCP stack. I'm afraid that went onto = the "read this later as time permits" pile as I was at a conference, = rather than the fast-path "oh, quickly review this patch" pile. However, = simply committing the patch rather than trying a bit harder to find a = reviewer isn't the right answer either. To maximise the likelihood of a = review, construct an e-mail with a subject line like "Review request: = (patch description)", attach the patch, and include a proposed commit = message. Robert=