Hi, On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:41:33PM +0200, PiBa-NL wrote: > Hi Willy, > > If you make some changes to what you think/know is better and break the > change into two parts is fine for me.
OK. > About calling setsockopt multiple times, i think the "ret |= " would not > evaluate the call behind it if "ret" already is 1, not absolutely sure > about that.. No, I can guarantee you that all of them will be called. > I didn't think of starting a if statement with "0 ||" which might speed > it up a clock tick or two so would be better anyway instead of having a > variable assignment in between. It's not a matter of saving a clock cycle but really not to call the setsockopt we don't want to call, while still keeping the ability to fall back to the remaining supported ones when possible. > Thanks, could you let me know when its ready then ill give it another > compile&check on FreeBSD. And provide a little 'documentation' on how i > configured the 'ipfw' firewall/nat to make it work. Perfect, I'll send you the patch back before merging it then. > p.s. > Ive spotted a issue in my patch with the IPv6 part where i forgot about > the OpenBSD part (SOL_SOCKET & SO_BINDANY) should probably be added > there also. No problem, we'll add this as a third patch. It's really important to have one feature per commit, because when for some reason we introduce regressions, users can easily revert just the faulty commit without losing the other ones. Cheers, Willy
