The following bug and source code [1] are present in OpenSSL:
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1929
I think something similar could be done in the JDK, by making some tweaks to
the SocketOptions classes to expose some more options. I'm pretty sure
something relating to this will wor
On Mar 22, 7:38am, xuelei@oracle.com (Xuelei Fan) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Review Request of JDK Enhancement Proposal: DTLS
| Networking experts, any suggestion?
I have not seen pmtu exposed at the application layer before. Has anyone
else?
christos
|
| Xuelei
|
| On 3/21/2014 8:28 AM, Mat
Networking experts, any suggestion?
Xuelei
On 3/21/2014 8:28 AM, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:58:50AM +0800, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> here. Although MTU is not PMTU, but it is normally "correct".
>
> I would state, not "normally correct", but "frequently correct".
>
> In case of
Hi Mark,
I think in the normal case, the memory is freed by the calling
function. It looks like the other cases aren't consistent though.
Michael
On 21/03/14 14:04, Mark Sheppard wrote:
Hi Chris,
thanks for the review ... yes, the question is intentional.
the freeing of netaddrP is inconsis
Hi Chris,
JDK-8037781 will be sent to code review as soon as JDK-8035158 (this) is closed.
Thanks.
Pavel
On 21 Mar 2014, at 09:59, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Thanks for doing this Pavel. The changes, and test, look good to me. I can
> sponsor this for you.
>
> I assume that once this changes is
Hi Chris,
thanks for the review ... yes, the question is intentional.
the freeing of netaddrP is inconsistent on the NULL returns, so I just
flagged it to
solicit opinion from those more familiar with this code, to
see if netaddrP should be freed prior to return ... L555 is another case
as y
This looks ok to me Mark.
You have added a question/comment on L514. Is this intentional?
L555. Not directly related to your changes, but should netaddrP be freed
there before returning NULL?
-Chris.
On 14/03/14 19:04, Mark Sheppard wrote:
Hi
Please oblige and review the following chang
On 21/03/14 09:58, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Thanks for doing this Pavel. The changes, and test, look good to me. I
can sponsor this for you.
-Chris.
+1. Looks good here too.
Michael
On 19/03/14 18:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
could you please review my change for JDK-8035158?
Defaul
Thanks for doing this Pavel. The changes, and test, look good to me. I
can sponsor this for you.
I assume that once this changes is pushed, JDK-8037781: "Remove
sun.misc.Regexp* classes", can proceed.
-Chris.
On 19/03/14 18:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
could you please review my cha
Thanks for doing this Pavel. The changes, and test, look good to me. I
can sponsor this for you.
-Chris.
On 19/03/14 18:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
could you please review my change for JDK-8035158?
DefaultProxySelector uses sun.misc.RegexpPool to parse properties that
configure the
10 matches
Mail list logo
