Milan, ping?
> On 5 Sep 2019, at 16:02, Pavel Rappo <pavel.ra...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I think we are almost there. What do you think of the following incremental > (i.e. on top of your latest webrev) change? > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8228580/webrev.01/ > > I fixed a couple of trivial typos and addressed the socket relinquishing > issue. Initializing a socket is not an atomic "all-or-nothing" operation now. > Someone needs to take care of the socket in case things go not as planned. > > -Pavel > >> On 5 Sep 2019, at 11:20, Milan Mimica <milan.mim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 20:32, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> If you use the initial UDP timeout (one second, I think), the kernel >>> will not complete the TCP handshake if the initial SYN segment is lost >>> because the retransmit delay during the handshake is longer than that. >> >> We could set a higher timeout value, but I would not prefer that. >> After all, 1 second is just default value, and can be changed. If the >> user wants us to give up on DNS query after the specified timeout then >> lets do just that. True, some queries that previously worked might >> start failing, but that is true even for slow socket.read() >> operations. >> >> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mmimica/8228580/webrev.01/ >> >> * simplified test with no thread (nice catch Pavel) >> * set connect timeout and account for it >> >> -- >> Milan Mimica >
