From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 23:17:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F49106564A; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:17:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: from mail.sippysoft.com (mail.sippysoft.com [4.59.13.245]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D588FC13; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [4.59.13.245] (helo=[192.168.1.79]) by mail.sippysoft.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QBxh7-0008NT-Hj; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:17:25 -0700 Message-ID: <4DACC684.7070301@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:17:24 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garrett Cooper References: <201104170605.p3H65cab028890@svn.freebsd.org> <20110418181314.GL16958@FreeBSD.org> <4DACB0C3.6000804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sobomax@sippysoft.com X-ssp-trusted: yes Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r220736 - head/sbin/natd X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:17:26 -0000 On 4/18/2011 3:26 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> And I don't see any problem with natd waiting indefinitely on the interface >> to acquire IP address, it's no better and no worse than the current behavior >> when the natd simply bails out. > > If it does this when backgrounded, that seems ok. If it blocks > foregrounded like this, that's not acceptable. Makes sense. I've checked in the patch, thanks! -Maxim