It's absolutely worth looking into and I'll get going on that, but I'd rather
deal with it separately to the ipv4 stuff. IcmpSendEcho already appears to
behave somewhat strangely, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that the ipv4 and
ipv6 code will end up being identical.
-Rob
On 21/09/16 05:35, Mark Sheppard wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> this looks good ...
>
> do you think there is any need to replicate these changes in
> Inet6AddressImpl.c ? (or leave it alone and don't trouble trouble until
> trouble troubles you :-)
>
> regards
> Mark
>
> regards
> Mark
> On 21/09/2016 16:16, Rob McKenna wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >I'd like to fix a bug caused by an incorrect assumption. The IcmpSendEcho*
> >calls can actually return a similar set of errors regardless of whether the
> >call itself failed or succeeded. This change checks that both the call and
> >the ping were successful. In addition to that it takes a number of common
> >failure causes into account before deciding to throw an exception.
> >
> >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8159410/webrev.01/
> >
> > -Rob
>
