Looks good to me

Hi Jose,

In D59556#1367125, @jlduran wrote:

Please see the suggested test (D59582). Ideally it should be squashed with this change. Thank you!

In D59555#1367069, @glebius wrote:

I don't object to the change, but IMHO better to not be afraid of improving the old code.

In D59555#1366699, @glebius wrote:

The call to pr_pack() is preceded by < 0 check of return of recvmsg() and then with another == 0 check. Thus, the cc is always positive. I would suggest to change prototype of pr_pack to unsigned type of cc. This will allow to operate with unsigned types for all lengths in the function and remove existing (ssize_t) casts as well as avoid adding new such casts.

Looks good.

It looks good. Thank you!

In fact, you already committed this delta :-)

Looks good.

In D56759#1300316, @asomers wrote:

Thanks for fixing this. You should ask re@ if they want it in 15.1.

I don't really know python good enough to review this but the idea sounds good to me.

OK, I added a small shell snippet as a possible test for the issue.

In D56759#1300158, @asomers wrote:

Thanks for catching this. Would it be possible to add an ATF test to catch the problem?

In D56112#1283665, @raghav.original_gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Maxim for the review

I will run this through a spell checker.

• Did you write the manpage from scratch or were any parts of it taken from elsewhere, e.g., from NetBSD? If the latter is true, the license

section should reflect it. I am asking because I see that it least some wording matches NetBSD closely.

Some portions of the wordings were taken from NetBSD where behavior seemed similar. How exactly should I reflect this in the license section.

If you borrow a substantial* amount of changes from NetBSD I'd the following:

LGTM.

Hi Raghav,

It looks good (modulo the .Dd comment from @dtxdf).

It looks good (modulo @salvadore's comments)

Looks good.

Looks good.

@vladlen @andy would you gentlemen please check it out? I'd love to hear our multi-lang support doesn't have any major issues after these changes.

Please go ahead with the commit.

Looks good.

Looks good.

LGTM.

Several cosmetic improvements suggested. Overall, it looks ok.