Mostly a style(9) nit: style(9) says C comments should be used (/* ... */)

Please rebase / reapply the new code changes. I reformatted the sources with clang-format in rG991bd461625a2c521d5be4fd6938deed57f60972.

Let me fix the formatting issues beforehand so the diff can be minimized to the functional changes...

Ran clang-format-devel against sbuf_core_test.c and generated the diff using git diff.

Could you please run clang-format on this file to resolve any formatting-related issues?

I see the currently proposed change as the following outcome:

• 13.x users should stay as is with old test suite and old Kyua from base or port/pkg. And the pkg is expected to be still cooked till 13 branch EOL.
• 14.x users are expected to find kyua pkg missing after upgrade to the latest port branch. They are expected to do such upgrade with OS upgrade as well, i.e. up to 14.2, which has the test suite aligned with Kyua in its base. 14.0 and 14.1 users of older Q branches are expected to use the same older suite and pkg. Even if they upgrade only ports having old 14.0 or 14.1 then they still have the test suite runnable with Kyua in their base.
• Just in case, the port is still available for anyone till 13 EOL (30 April 2026).
• A port/pkg update is expected to show the deprecation notice. It should cover attended cases.

IGNORE it for 14.0+

Bump PORTREVISION with the expectation that users will see the deprecation notice upon upgrade.

Just BUMP PORTREVISION and merge it quarterly. You will be absolutely sure that everyone will know about it if they upgrade their pkg in next 6 months.

Seems fine to me. I don't know the ports framework well enough to give a proper review, but the plan is good.

Update the deprecation notice as suggested.

Please, check the updated patch as the follow-up of your email.

So far, I remember that I took over the maintainership while the original author did not have time to focus on this and handed over the repo to our project. I also merged some of the upstream codes in the base. So, I am adding others who were involved in that process at that time. However, I do not have any objection to this review at all.

In D43475#991182, @bofh wrote:

In D43475#991153, @markj wrote:

I don't see what's preventing you from pushing the kyua vendor branch to a github fork. And that's not necessary anyway, if you just push the merge commit somewhere, that's sufficient.

Here is the branch https://github.com/5u623l20/freebsd-src/tree/kyua-merge

In D43475#991153, @markj wrote:

I don't see what's preventing you from pushing the kyua vendor branch to a github fork. And that's not necessary anyway, if you just push the merge commit somewhere, that's sufficient.

Here is the branch https://github.com/5u623l20/freebsd-src/tree/kyua-merge

In D43475#991166, @bofh wrote:

In D43475#991153, @markj wrote:

Looks sane, thanks. I ran through the test suite locally with this change and didn't spot any new problems.

My tests did not yield any errors.

Let us know if you'd like review of the merge commit itself, i.e., push the merge somewhere that we can inspect it.

It's a bit difficult pushing a merge commit somewhere else specially Github. As the vendor trees are actually not present in a Github fork. If you want I can create custom branch and apply the patch manually and push it to a new branch if it helps.

In D43475#991153, @markj wrote:

Looks sane, thanks. I ran through the test suite locally with this change and didn't spot any new problems.

My tests did not yield any errors.

Looks sane, thanks. I ran through the test suite locally with this change and didn't spot any new problems.

I've been able to trigger an sbwait() assertion failure in the receive path when running KTLS tests, but only when running tests in parallel in QEMU. I believe the problem is the following: KTLS introduces a state for received data wherein it is being decrypted but is not yet queued in the socket buffer. In this case (sb_tlsdcc != 0), we can end up calling sbwait() with CANTRECVMORE set because that sleep/wakeup mechanism is used to signal completion of decryption operations.

Thanks, Mark, I will send you two commits as requested. Thanks again for all your help!

Looks good to me. Thanks for working on this.

Reformat to ahere to suggested style...

@ngie @lwhsu Hello, I found this on https://wiki.freebsd.org/JuniorJobs, Please close this. This is more involved than what i could comprehend from that page.

In D32736#743547, @mckusick wrote:

Sorry for my long delay.

I concur that it is my change that should be fixed, not these tests.

I believe that the correct fix is this:

diff --git a/sbin/geom/core/geom.c b/sbin/geom/core/geom.c
index 2e0d8683df49..0202be9a063e 100644
--- a/sbin/geom/core/geom.c
+++ b/sbin/geom/core/geom.c
@@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ set_flags(struct g_command *cmd)
 {
        unsigned flags = 0;

-       if ((cmd->gc_flags & G_FLAG_VERBOSE) != 0)
+       if ((cmd->gc_flags & G_FLAG_VERBOSE) != 0 && verbose)
                flags |= G_FLAG_VERBOSE;

        return (flags);

Sorry for my long delay.