From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 19 00:09:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA83A10656A4 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:09:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@dougbarton.us) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4328FC1A for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15686 invoked by uid 399); 19 Feb 2011 00:09:33 -0000 Received: from router.ka9q.net (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@75.60.237.91) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 19 Feb 2011 00:09:33 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 75.60.237.91 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4D5F0A3B.1060305@dougbarton.us> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:09:31 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110129 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Macklem References: <15348085.102038.1298052500896.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <15348085.102038.1298052500896.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mike@jellydonut.org, george+freebsd@m5p.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:09:35 -0000 On 02/18/2011 10:08, Rick Macklem wrote: > The attached patches changes the behaviour so that it tries to > get an unused port for each of the 4 cases. Am I correct in assuming that what you're proposing is to (potentially) have different ports for all 4 combinations? I would suggest that this is not the right way to solve the problem. If I misunderstand, I apologize. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/