Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change. ( http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14228 )
Change subject: [thirdparty] add SO_REUSEPORT for chronyd NTP socket ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: > Could we get by with a patch to enable ephemeral port binding > instead? That's less invasive than this, which seems unlikely to be > accepted upstream. Why do you think the ephemeral port binding change for chrony is less invasive than adding SO_REUSEPORT (i.e. this small patch)? Do you have some particular considerations w.r.t. SO_REUSEPORT change? >From what I see in chrony's source code, changing its code to properly support >(and that's is needed if we talking about accepting the patch upstream by >chrony) binding to ephemeral port would change many places there: >interpretation of configuration directive 'port' in configuraiton file, >multiple places in code that interpret port '0' as a special value meaning >"don't open NTP port at all", etc. By my understanding, that would be much >more invasive than this small patch. What do you think? -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14228 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-Project: kudu Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: Iee26fcf93976dd7affe77254751016bcbf398620 Gerrit-Change-Number: 14228 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Greg Solovyev <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Hao Hao <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120) Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:12:11 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: No
