From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 28 08:31:02 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 7A588D99; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:02 +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 488D68FC0C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC9246B2C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:31:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: svn commit: r243627 - head/sys/kern In-Reply-To: <50B5C4F1.1020002@freebsd.org> Message-ID: 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> <2A12C740-1D72-4D30-B663-47A37AAC2FF3@FreeBSD.org> <50B5C4F1.1020002@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:02 -0000 On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Yes, and I didn't really expect you to answer (at least quickly) during your > FreeBSD hiatus. So it was seeking review by chance. > > Alas I found and fixed the bug myself within 2.5hrs. While not optimal, a > sign of poor prior testing and too much trust into the submitter of the > patch it wasn't an earth shattering event. Doesn't distract from the fact > that it was mea culpa in any case though. The rapid fix was, of course, extremely appreciated :-). > For prior review of kern_socket* and netinet/tcp_* related changes it has > been on and off by various committers over the past year. If we do have a > policy of prior review required then it should be made official and codified > in MAINTAINERS and universally applied to all. I tend to be of the view that 'maintainers' is a bad idea, and that we should just make a regular practice of seeking review for this sort of thing, especially as our community grows (and, let us be honest, complexity also grows -- your observations about decades of accumulated complexity in the TCP stack are not amiss). I'll try to take a look at this change in detail over the weekend -- listen/accept locking is a bit of a sore point; in the original design, I didn't have a separate accept lock, but ended up being forced to introduce it to solve races along these lines. In the past we've also relied on the pcbinfo lock in the protocol providing significant synchronisation during new connection events, and as we reduce the influence of that lock, finding more structured solutions is necessary. Robert