From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 23:05:42 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0332E71B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:05:41 +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 C1C058FC15; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:05:41 +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 8EF1D46B06; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:05:40 -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: <50B54492.5040100@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:05:39 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <956CE44A-BA0F-4FE4-AA38-F4B90C85ECBA@FreeBSD.org> References: <201211272004.qARK4qS8047209@svn.freebsd.org> <50B54180.5020608@freebsd.org> <50B54492.5040100@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-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:05:42 -0000 On 27 Nov 2012, at 22:54, 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. 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 :-). Robert=