Automatic merge from submit-queue
Cover port_allocator_test with more conditions
The test cases of port_allocator_test should cover more conditions, such as `rangeAllocator.used.Bit`.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/proxy
cc @thockin
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
We were trying to be clever and respect TCP's notion of half-open sockets, but
it causes leaks when we can't unblock io.Copy(). This fixes those leaks and
seems to follow most expectations. I think we were just be too clever.
Refactor `pkg/proxy/config`’s ServiceConfigHandler.OnUpdate and
EndpointsConfigHandler.OnUpdate to different method names as they have
different signatures.
This will let the new proxy
(https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/3760)
implement both interfaces.
Since we won’t need a separate loadbalancer structure (load balancing
is handled in the proxy rules), we will simply handle both event types
from the same object.
Moves the userspace code in proxy to a sub-package and adds the
ProxyProvider interface.
This is in preparation for landing an implementation of
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/3760, which
will mostly be in another sub package for iptables.
