From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 25 0: 0:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2238B37B40A for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from yahoo.samart.co.th (tidkeaw.samart.co.th [203.149.0.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 20A5043E9C for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iddi55@hotmail.com) Received: (qmail 704 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2002 08:09:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ardency.samart.co.th) ([10.0.0.11]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.0.0.22 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Nov 2002 08:09:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12318 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2002 08:10:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO yahoo.samart.co.th) ([203.149.34.105]) (envelope-sender ) by yahoo.samart.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Nov 2002 08:10:09 -0000 Message-Id: <1038211245.169@samart.co.th> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:00:45 0700 To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org From: "ฉันชนก" Subject: มีของดีมาบอกนะค๊ะ.... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ลองเข้าไปกันดูนะค๊ะสำหรับผู้ที่ต้องการที่จะรักษาสุขภาพและควบคุมน้ำหนักที่ได้ผ ลที่สุด ไม่ต้องอดอาหาร เข้ามาได้ที่www.geocities.com/lookbestshape/health_slim/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 14:50:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CA437B401 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4139943E4A for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:50:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with SMTP id gAQMoQBF008956 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:50:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:50:26 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Architectural question: in the past, we've attempted to maintain consistent ABIs over the lifetime of a branch, or to make use of versioned ABIs/APIs to provide compatibility. At the library level, this has involved caution and version bumps; at the system call level, via compatibility systems, and in the kernel, to a much lesser extent, by avoiding changes or only lengthening structures from the end (rather than in the middle). The ABI I'm primarily concerned with from the perspective of this e-mail is the in-kernel ABI for modules. My concern is primarily related to how to handle a potential ABI change in the mbuf structure, but more broadly, whether we should be providing guarantees about the ABI before 5.1. I'm particularly concerned that saying that we've frozen the network driver ABIs and hardware driver ABIs as of 5.0 until 6.0 rolls around will make it a lot harder for us to "land" 5.x into stability. As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? Note: I really don't want to get into too broad a discussion of how we approach ABIs and versioning: I'd rather like to get a sense of whether or not we can assert that until 5.x is considered -STABLE, we can move the ABI. This isn't intended to set precedent, although I'd like to avoid foot-shooting if we can. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 14:59:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9C937B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8725F43EA9; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:59:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAQMxj76002080; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:59:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Robert Watson Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:50:26 EST." Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:59:45 +0100 Message-ID: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Robe rt Watson writes: >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should >be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already >indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to >avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape >in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze the ABI's for that branch. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 15:11:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB1137B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FDA43E88; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAQNB5TO040393; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAQNB5k2040392; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Robert Watson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021126151105.A40282@xorpc.icir.org> References: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Robe > rt Watson writes: > > >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: > >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that > >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should ... > > It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches > (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). > > Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze > the ABI's for that branch. I fully agree with Poul-Henning (this does not answer to robert's question, just moves it from 'when do we freeze the ABI' to 'when do we branch a new -stable' but at least it is only one thing to decide and not two). cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 16:18:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E924437B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270C943E4A; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:18:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id gAR0I6ZK044940; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:18:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:18:04 -0500 To: Poul-Henning Kamp , Robert Watson From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11:59 PM +0100 11/26/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Robert Watson writes: > > > As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly > > that: rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply > > assert that the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until > > 5.1, so vendors should be aware that they may have to rebuild > > their driver. > >It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches >(and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). > >Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we >freeze the ABI's for that branch. My initial reaction to this description is that it "sounds reasonable". However, I guess I'm not sure what the head branch will be called after 5.0-release, and before we consider it "production quality". Presumably it will still be called -current, but it can't be the same kind of -current as it was before 5.0-release. *Some* things have to be considered frozen, or else 5.0-release is a meaningless datapoint. So, I have no problem with saying that kernel ABI's will not be frozen until 5.1-release, but I assume all the user-level ABI's and API's are considered frozen at 5.0-release. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 17:35:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D315A37B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F5543E4A; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:35:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with ESMTP id <2002112701350900300j6o1qe>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:35:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA55386; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:30:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:30:11 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Robert Watson Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm happy with this as long as we remember this when people want to add stuff to structures in the kernel and people yell at them :-) (e.g. the posibility of doing the virtualised network stack stuff would require that fields get added to interfaces and processes.) I still think we may save some grief by pre-loading the "usual suspects" with some "spare" fields before 5.0. Julian On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Robert Watson wrote: > > Architectural question: in the past, we've attempted to maintain > consistent ABIs over the lifetime of a branch, or to make use of versioned > ABIs/APIs to provide compatibility. At the library level, this has > involved caution and version bumps; at the system call level, via > compatibility systems, and in the kernel, to a much lesser extent, by > avoiding changes or only lengthening structures from the end (rather than > in the middle). The ABI I'm primarily concerned with from the perspective > of this e-mail is the in-kernel ABI for modules. My concern is primarily > related to how to handle a potential ABI change in the mbuf structure, but > more broadly, whether we should be providing guarantees about the ABI > before 5.1. I'm particularly concerned that saying that we've frozen the > network driver ABIs and hardware driver ABIs as of 5.0 until 6.0 rolls > around will make it a lot harder for us to "land" 5.x into stability. > > As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: > rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that > the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should > be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already > indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to > avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape > in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? > > Note: I really don't want to get into too broad a discussion of how we > approach ABIs and versioning: I'd rather like to get a sense of whether or > not we can assert that until 5.x is considered -STABLE, we can move the > ABI. This isn't intended to set precedent, although I'd like to avoid > foot-shooting if we can. > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 23:27:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0515E37B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4873843EB2; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:27:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAR7RSpk054656; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:27:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:26:57 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : In message , Robe : rt Watson writes: : : >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: : >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that : >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should : >be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already : >indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to : >avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape : >in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? : : It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches : (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). : : Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze : the ABI's for that branch. That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 23:30:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AE837B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F267C43E4A; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:30:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with ESMTP id <2002112707300905300d27oce>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:30:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA57649; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:29:04 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk> > Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > : In message , Robe > : rt Watson writes: > : > : >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: > : >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that > : >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should > : >be aware that they may have to rebuild their driver. We've already > : >indicated that the 5.0 release will be for "early adopters"--I want to > : >avoid having things stand in the way of kicking the 5.x branch into shape > : >in as much as is possible. Any thoughts? > : > : It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches > : (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). > : > : Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze > : the ABI's for that branch. > > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... > > Warner > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 23:41: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C048137B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A6343EAF; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:41:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAR7espk054734; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:40:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:40:23 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021127.004023.92153958.imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@elischer.org Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: Julian Elischer writes: : which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... How about a 'strawman patch' that can be evaluated? Simply stating that we should add some fields is like being for motherhood and apple pie. You can't argue with it, but at the same time women die in childbirth and too much apple pie can cause obesity. What's good in the abstract might be less good in the concrete in a few edge cases... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 26 23:43:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E4237B406; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7680243E88; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAR7hiTO059685; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAR7hiOH059684; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:44 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Julian Elischer Cc: "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: ... > > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely > > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't > > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, > > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you > > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. > > which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... I don't see much need for it. We have a nice infrastructure (m_tags) to carry info together with mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the usual suspects are all covered. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 4:42:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CAF37B401 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 04:42:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rockwelldatacorp.com (108.Red-80-33-216.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.33.216.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAD7843E88 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 04:42:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j.schroeder@rockwelldatacorp.com) From: "J Schroeder" To: Subject: Urgent Unix Support Requirement for Frankfurt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:42:23 +0100 Reply-To: "J Schroeder" Message-Id: <20021127124254.EAD7843E88@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi. If any of you guys are looking (or know of anyone looking) for a new position in Frankfurt, I have a colleague looking for several Unix Support people there. Please drop me a mail if interested and I will forward details The rquirement involves: Knowledge of UNIX, SQL or programming languages, Standard Microsoft software, Native German speaker (also good knowledge of English) Best regards, J. Schroeder To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 5:31:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E58137B404 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:31:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (205-158-62-49.outblaze.com [205.158.62.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0268C43EDA for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:31:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from luisapejercito1@asia.com) Received: (qmail 54431 invoked by uid 1001); 27 Nov 2002 13:30:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20021127133056.54429.qmail@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [66.178.47.92] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for luisapejercito1@asia.com; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:30:56 -0500 From: "Luisa Estrada Ejercito" To: luisapejercito1@asia.com Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:30:56 -0500 Subject: Luisa Estrada X-Originating-Ip: 66.178.47.92 X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I am Dr Luisa Pimentel Estrada, the wife of Joseph Ejercito Estrada,former president of Philippines. I have children with my husband Jose, Jacqueline and Jude.Two sons and a daugther.This mail may be coming to you as a surprise or an article but it is very real.I gave the mail to my daugther Jude to send the mail to any contacts she sees and may be a God fearing person will listen to our plight.I will want you as the receiver to read through it and think very well if you can help or render us any assistance. My husband Joseph Ejercito estrada was elected as the 13th President of the Philippines in May 1998 by the people of Philippines due to his popularity in the film industry made him to win the largest popularity in the history of election in Philippines.He has attain the position of Senate in 1987,then vice-president in May 1992 and later become the president 1998.My husband became mayor of his hometown, San Juan in 1969 but it was 1972 that he had a string of public successes. My husband was named one of the ten Outstanding Young Men in Public Administration. He was also named Most Outstanding Mayor and Foremost Nationalist and Most Outstanding Metro Manila Mayor. My husband is recently accused of illegal acquire some four Billion Peso ($80M) during his 31 months in office as President backed up by an uprising of mass Demonstrators and Senate Traitors. They also said that he has skimmed off tobacco excise Taxes benefitting from government business deals.Most of them benefitted from my husband's generousity when he was in office. But they just turned around to be the ones to impeach him. I have tried every possible means to get him out of Detention without success. The Despotic forces in power appear bent in deriding him, rubbishing his achievements while freezing all his known Bank accounts.He has been accused of economic plunder carrying the maximum penalty of death.To the worst of it all,all other wives of my husband especailly Guia Gomez and some of his children born outside wedlock are testifying against us.In conjunction with the PCGG funded by the recent President Arroyo Macapagal Gloria. These are some of the allegations file before my husband in the impeachment trial; 1. Gov. Luis Singson, a longtime friend of my husband, said he provided the my husband with more than $8 million in payoffs from illegal gambling and $2.7 million from tobacco taxes. 2. Witnesses testify one of an account in the Philippines third largest bank held millions of dollars in bribes collected by my husband. Equitable PCI Bank President George Go resigns. The banks senior vice president, Clarissa Ocampo, said she saw my husband sign a false name to documents withdrawing $10 million from a secret personal account. 3. On Dec 31 Five synchronized bomb attacks kill 22 people and injure more than 120 in Manila, days before the trial is to return from holiday recess. Police accuse Muslim rebels but many fear the bombs may be linked to the trial. 4. That my husband received about $8.5 million in pay-offs from illegal gambling operators. 5. That my husband participated in a real estate business controlled by me and my son Jose despite a prohibition on outside business interests while in office. My husband is suffering from bronchitis and emphysema right now and he detained at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City in hospital prison outside Manila where the life of my husband is in danger.I will let you know that it is political motivated by Gloria Arroyo.Meanwhile,the government has said that it may drop rebellion charges against my husband allies Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and the former ambassador to the United State Ernesto Maceda because they were in the side of my husband,both men were later jailed by the government of Gloria Arroyo that they instigated a march on the presidential palace by 50,000 supporters of my husband.These are all political.All these are done to have my husband death. Presently life has not been easy for my children and I,my travelling documents have been seized by the government and they restricted me and my children to have access to my husband. Haven seen the way things are going with us.He decided to let me know that he deposited some money with security companies in Bangkok,Thailand and Amsterdam,Netherland.He said that he deposited the sum of twenty Million dollars $20,000,000 in my name (Pimentel Luisa Estrada) in Amsterdam.Now I want to start a new life with the money.I want to invest the money outside Philippines. What I am begging you is to assist me in receiving the money on my behalf.You will have to represent me in receiving the money with the security company. I have discussed with the security company here in Metropolitan Manila about this arrangement,they assured me that the money will be release to my representative.In that regards,I have gone to collect the documents needed from Gomez Carlos who my husband kept the documents with. If you are willing to assist me in receiving the money.You will send me your full names,contact Fax and Telephone numbers to enable me forward your information to the security company. Once you get back to me,we will discuss the percentage you will liken to take as a fee for the assistance.I will be communicating with you by email because my telephone lines are not safe for the transaction because of the heighten security around me and my family. You can respond to drluisaestradaejercito@pinoymail.com and jacestradaejercito@pinoymail.com because I can not be reaching you all the time. I would want us to be in partnership in any good business you may suggest in your country. Please handle this transaction with maturity and sincerity. Best Regards, Dr Luisa Pimental Estrada -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup One click access to the Top Search Engines http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 5:33:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB0137B404 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D847843EBE for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:33:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29455 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 13:33:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 27 Nov 2002 13:33:35 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gARDXXuH016379; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:33:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:33:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Luigi Rizzo Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, "M. Warner Losh" , Julian Elischer Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 27-Nov-2002 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > ... >> > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely >> > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't >> > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, >> > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you >> > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. >> >> which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... > > I don't see much need for it. > > We have a nice infrastructure (m_tags) to carry info together with > mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by > the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external > arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have > the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the > usual suspects are all covered. He wants to add spare fields to proc/thread/kse/kseg. I don't particularly like doing it since IMO it isn't very clean, but that's just my opinion. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 7:56:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B94837B401 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.iskon.hr (inje.iskon.hr [213.191.128.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7169043E88 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:56:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from zec@tel.fer.hr) Received: (qmail 10704 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 16:56:23 +0100 Received: from zg03-114.dialin.iskon.hr (HELO tel.fer.hr) (213.191.135.115) by mail.iskon.hr with SMTP; 27 Nov 2002 16:56:23 +0100 Message-ID: <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:56:18 +0100 From: Marko Zec X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Julian Elischer , "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > ... > > which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... > > I don't see much need for it. > > We have a nice infrastructure (m_tags) to carry info together with > mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by > the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external > arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have > the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the > usual suspects are all covered. This concepts are unfortunately not applicable in case of virtualization / cloning of the entire network stack. As each network stack instance has its own set of arrays a'la ifindex2ifnet[], the if_index often has the same value across multiple stack instances, for different interfaces residing in different stacks. The bridging code was especially problematic for virtualization just because of this concept of using external arrays for storing bridging specific data, indexed by if_index. In case of network stack virtualization, the m_tags infrastructure doesn't help much either. The virtualization concept simply requires an additional pointer in both struct ifnet and proc. The issue with the bridging code is currently resolved by extending the struct arpcom to hold bridging specific information instead of using the external ifp2sc array, though I'm not sure this is the most appropriate solution either... Marko To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 8:11:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C5237B401; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E8643EC2; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:11:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gARGAtTO077169; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:10:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gARGAthB077168; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:10:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:10:55 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Marko Zec Cc: Julian Elischer , "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021127081054.A76965@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr>; from zec@tel.fer.hr on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:56:18PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Marko Zec wrote: ... > > mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by > > the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external > > arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have > > the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the > > usual suspects are all covered. > > This concepts are unfortunately not applicable in case of virtualization / > cloning of the entire network stack. As each network stack instance has its > own set of arrays a'la ifindex2ifnet[], the if_index often has the same value i don't follow. Why can't you think of the if_index as a unique identifier for the actual device and put the extra pointer in extra_pointer[if_index] ? This way you can also have per-virtual-image instances of whatever extra info you need. Same for struct proc (we used a few spare bytes in -stable' struct proc exactly in this way, storing an equivalent of if_index, and going to an external structure through it to access extension information for our proportional share scheduler). There are surely minor performance issues with this (you have to go through a base_ptr+index whenever you access the extra info instead of using a direct pointer), but in many cases this disappears in the noise. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 9:14:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF12137B404 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:14:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.iskon.hr (inje.iskon.hr [213.191.128.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED3A343EBE for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:14:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from zec@tel.fer.hr) Received: (qmail 28053 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 18:14:14 +0100 Received: from zg06-044.dialin.iskon.hr (HELO tel.fer.hr) (213.191.148.45) by mail.iskon.hr with SMTP; 27 Nov 2002 18:14:14 +0100 Message-ID: <3DE4FD66.78DE9AEB@tel.fer.hr> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:14:14 +0100 From: Marko Zec X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Julian Elischer , "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr> <20021127081054.A76965@xorpc.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Marko Zec wrote: > ... > > > mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by > > > the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external > > > arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have > > > the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the > > > usual suspects are all covered. > > > > This concepts are unfortunately not applicable in case of virtualization / > > cloning of the entire network stack. As each network stack instance has its > > own set of arrays a'la ifindex2ifnet[], the if_index often has the same value > > i don't follow. Why can't you think of the if_index as a unique identifier > for the actual device and put the extra pointer in extra_pointer[if_index] ? > This way you can also have per-virtual-image instances of whatever > extra info you need. if_index is not only used for accessing ifindex2ifnet[], but some other arrays as well, such as ifnet_addrs[] or ipx_ifaddr[]. If we want to have fully independent network stacks with overlapping addressing schemes, the simplest and cleanest approach is a clear separation of all those arrays containing any type of addressing information. Otherwise, many parts of the code traversing through those arrays would have to be extended with an additional logic, which in my opinion would not make these code chunks more difficult to comprehend, but would also decrease their efficiency as well. > Same for struct proc (we used a few spare bytes in > -stable' struct proc exactly in this way, storing an equivalent of > if_index, and going to an external structure through it to access > extension information for our proportional share scheduler). > There are surely minor performance issues with this (you have > to go through a base_ptr+index whenever you access the extra info > instead of using a direct pointer), but in many cases this disappears > in the noise. That's exactly what I've done in the original 4.7-R patch. However, it is clear that using a dedicated pointer directly in struct proc instead of having an index to external array of pointers would be not only more efficient solution, but also probably a more readable one. I just think right now (before 5.0 is released) we have a nice opportunity to introduce some spare pointers for such or similar purposes, without making significant sacrifices or introducing a whole bunch of new problems at the same time. Marko To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 11:50:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD48437B407; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69B643ECD; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with ESMTP id <2002112719500900200sp2fee>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:50:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA62660; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:46:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:46:09 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: John Baldwin Cc: Luigi Rizzo , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 27-Nov-2002 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > ... > >> > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely > >> > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't > >> > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, > >> > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you > >> > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. > >> > >> which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... > > > > I don't see much need for it. > > > > We have a nice infrastructure (m_tags) to carry info together with > > mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by > > the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external > > arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have > > the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the > > usual suspects are all covered. > > He wants to add spare fields to proc/thread/kse/kseg. I don't > particularly like doing it since IMO it isn't very clean, but > that's just my opinion. I'm not hell bent on it.. it just may reduce the amount of module incompatibilities we see over the next couple of releases.. I also was thinking og th eifnet structure.. there are afew projects in the wings that will want to put pointers there.. e.g. the stack virtualisation that PHK raved about.. > > -- > > John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 12:45:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3011937B401; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from kayak.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C3243EBE; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by kayak.xcllnt.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gARKj5rT005598; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@kayak.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gARKjAnC000865; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gARKjAlw000864; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:10 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Robert Watson Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021127204510.GA794@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > of this e-mail is the in-kernel ABI for modules. My concern is primarily > related to how to handle a potential ABI change in the mbuf structure, but > more broadly, whether we should be providing guarantees about the ABI > before 5.1. Yes. We should provide as much guarantees as we think is reasonable given the expectation that the ABI may change. Consequently, we should minimize the wishy-washy stance as much as we deem reasonable under wishy-washy conditions. I divert from previously expressed and reasonable opinions that I do want to pin down something (ie whatever we don't expect to change, if such exists) rather than not pinning down anything because something may change. The advantage of selective pinning is that it promotes stability. If anything that should be our highest priority. In colours: It's not a black and white situation and I think we should pass to grey before going all black. My $0.02 -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 16:19: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5996337B401; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:19:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C9243EAF; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:18:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAS0IlTO098321; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:18:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAS0IkHp098320; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:18:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:18:46 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Marko Zec Cc: Julian Elischer , "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021127161846.A98188@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr> <20021127081054.A76965@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4FD66.78DE9AEB@tel.fer.hr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3DE4FD66.78DE9AEB@tel.fer.hr>; from zec@tel.fer.hr on Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:14:14PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:14:14PM +0100, Marko Zec wrote: ... > if_index is not only used for accessing ifindex2ifnet[], but some other arrays as > well, such as ifnet_addrs[] or ipx_ifaddr[]. If we want to have fully independent > network stacks with overlapping addressing schemes, the simplest and cleanest > approach is a clear separation of all those arrays containing any type of > addressing information. Otherwise, many parts of the code traversing through those I still do not follow what you have in mind. You need to link the descriptor for the virtualized device to the descriptor for the actual piece of hardware, and vice-versa. For the former you are ok with a pointer, but for the latter you cannot use a pointer because each virtual network stack (you can have multiple) would need its own. A thing such as if_index is actually exactly what you need because you can use it to reach different info in the different contexts. If you are saying that you need multiple ifnet_addrs[] and ifindex2ifnet[] etc., one per virtual network stack, yes that is true, but has nothing to do with the device driver which are totally unaware of their presence. > > Same for struct proc (we used a few spare bytes in > > -stable' struct proc exactly in this way, storing an equivalent of > > if_index, and going to an external structure through it to access > > extension information for our proportional share scheduler). > > There are surely minor performance issues with this (you have > > to go through a base_ptr+index whenever you access the extra info > > instead of using a direct pointer), but in many cases this disappears > > in the noise. > > That's exactly what I've done in the original 4.7-R patch. However, > it is clear that using a dedicated pointer directly in struct proc > instead of having an index to external array of pointers would be > not only more efficient solution, but also probably a more readable actually the pointer would be a nightmare in the case of multiple virtual network stacks, or jails, or virtual systems, because you need this "pointer" to dereference to different things depending on the virtual instance you are working on. Just re-think of the if_index: a single field could be used to extend the ifnet with bridging, ipx, multiple ip addresses, etc. all at the same time and without any ABI issue. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 28 0:29: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD04137B401 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.iskon.hr (inje.iskon.hr [213.191.128.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFC1D43EC2 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:29:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from zec@tel.fer.hr) Received: (qmail 10521 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 09:28:48 +0100 Received: from zg03-107.dialin.iskon.hr (HELO tel.fer.hr) (213.191.135.108) by mail.iskon.hr with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 09:28:48 +0100 Message-ID: <3DE5D3C1.4B309269@tel.fer.hr> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:28:49 +0100 From: Marko Zec X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Julian Elischer , "M. Warner Losh" , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4EB22.39D9BD07@tel.fer.hr> <20021127081054.A76965@xorpc.icir.org> <3DE4FD66.78DE9AEB@tel.fer.hr> <20021127161846.A98188@xorpc.icir.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:14:14PM +0100, Marko Zec wrote: > ... > > if_index is not only used for accessing ifindex2ifnet[], but some other arrays as > > well, such as ifnet_addrs[] or ipx_ifaddr[]. If we want to have fully independent > > network stacks with overlapping addressing schemes, the simplest and cleanest > > approach is a clear separation of all those arrays containing any type of > > addressing information. Otherwise, many parts of the code traversing through those > > I still do not follow what you have in mind. > > You need to link the descriptor for the virtualized device to the descriptor > for the actual piece of hardware, and vice-versa. For the former you > are ok with a pointer, but for the latter you cannot use a pointer because > each virtual network stack (you can have multiple) would need its own. > A thing such as if_index is actually exactly what you need because > you can use it to reach different info in the different contexts. > > If you are saying that you need multiple ifnet_addrs[] and ifindex2ifnet[] > etc., one per virtual network stack, yes that is true, but has nothing > to do with the device driver which are totally unaware of their presence. Now I do not follow :) The virtualization framework actually doesn't touch device drivers at all. There are no such things as "virtualized devices" and "actual pieces of hardware" as you are suggesting. One physical device (and its entire _unmodified_ driver) can reside in one and only one virtual stack image at a time. For other network stack instances, the access to the outside world via the link layer can be provided by _bridging_ the real (ethernet) device with an entirely independent and stub virtual ethernet device, with it's own struct arpcom and ifnet and it's own MAC address. Otherwise the descriptors of the "real" and "virtual" interfaces are normally not linked in any way - each interface is fully independent as it should be (except vlan and friends, but that's another story). > > > Same for struct proc (we used a few spare bytes in > > > -stable' struct proc exactly in this way, storing an equivalent of > > > if_index, and going to an external structure through it to access > > > extension information for our proportional share scheduler). > > > There are surely minor performance issues with this (you have > > > to go through a base_ptr+index whenever you access the extra info > > > instead of using a direct pointer), but in many cases this disappears > > > in the noise. > > > That's exactly what I've done in the original 4.7-R patch. However, > > it is clear that using a dedicated pointer directly in struct proc > > instead of having an index to external array of pointers would be > > not only more efficient solution, but also probably a more readable > > actually the pointer would be a nightmare in the case of multiple > virtual network stacks, or jails, or virtual systems, because you need > this "pointer" to dereference to different things depending on the > virtual instance you are working on. I'm not sure what you're aiming at - only _one_ pointer is needed to a struct which servers as a container for all the virtualized symbols. If one day the virtualization approach would become more modular, one pointer could still be sufficient, but now to a different structure defining to which virtualized resources the process is bound to (network stack, jail-style process group, CPU, VM, swap etc.) > Just re-think of the if_index: a single field could be used to extend > the ifnet with bridging, ipx, multiple ip addresses, etc. all at the > same time and without any ABI issue. Just the contrary - in my view preserving ABI is much simpler if you have independent indexing of network interfaces for each virtual image. Which reminds me on another thing I almost forgot - there is a sysctl in net/if_mib.c that relies on ifnet_addrs to be monolithic - one reason more why the approach of holding pointers to interfaces belonging to different virtual images in a _single_ array would be difficult to implement (you would have to skip the entrys not belonging to the current virtual image, but at the same time pretend the interface indexes are not skipped...) Marko To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message