LGTM. The extra braces you added in order to create scope for the itv variable are stylistically contentious. Some people would disagree with that, because it's not commonly done. But I happen to like that technique myself; no reason for itv to have more scope than necessary.

It's ready to go, but I had one more question at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22492 . I was waiting for your answer, not because it's strictly required but just in case you had something surprising to say.

In D22492#491936, @adamw wrote:

Sorry Alan, this was breaking the build on 11 so I committed it.

Always install man pages, but use USE=makeinfo

In D22492#491840, @adamw wrote:

This isn't the right approach. Manpages aren't docs like FAQ and HACKING and DETAILS; they're manpages and their existence shouldn't be controlled by the DOCS option.

There are a couple options we could do:

1. Only touch *.texi and patch the texi sources if DOCS is enabled
2. Add a MANPAGES option
3. Continue touching *.texi and patching the texi sources regardless, but delete the makeinfo line from docs/Makefile.am if DOCS is off
4. Everybody gets texinfo

FYI, the DR already contained a PORTREVISION bump. You were probably just looking at the second item in the history, instead of the whole diff.

Rebuild man pages on every build, rather than try to patch them.

In D22471#491471, @adamw wrote:

This seems tremendously fragile. Unless I'm misunderstanding, these massive patches would have to be regenerated for every update (assuming changes), which---while I appreciate the patch coming down the pipeline---I don't relish the thought of being responsible for.

It should be fine to add new tests cases that depend on a specific nbits. Just add them normally instead of using the BITSTRING_TC_DEFINE macro.

Would you mind adding tests to tests/sys/sys/bitstring_test.c?

Committed in r515201 .

What about ping6.c? It has a similar invocation of alarm.

Fix the failloop test.

@hrs do you realize that the submitter is not a committer? Can you commit this change for him?

Thanks Allan!

That's not much of a test plan. Perhaps try sudo?

Update tunable description, too.

cc @pinchuk.alek_gmail.com

ping @imp does this look correct to you?

If PATH_MAX + 1 is a problem here, then it's also a problem at fs/nfsserver/nfs_nfsdport.c:{3520, 3527, 3534, 3542}.