From owner-svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 6 18:25:51 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E88E88; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:25:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from hammer.pct.niksun.com (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D548FC13; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50C0E2EF.70707@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:24:47 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson Subject: Re: svn commit: r243929 - projects/bpfjit References: <201212060050.qB60nxXk021929@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the src " projects" tree" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:25:51 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-12-06 04:05:27 -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >> Author: jkim Date: Thu Dec 6 00:49:59 2012 New Revision: 243929 >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243929 >> >> Log: Add an UPDATING entry for the BPF_JITTER deprecation. > > Will it actually be necessary to change the kernel option name -- > my impression was that the previous JIT (and possibly the new JIT) > are actually entirely transparent to userspace applications -- they > keep submitting BPF filters per normal...? Correct. > In which case, perhaps there's no need to change the option name, > as that would introduce an upgrade hurdle. Or is there sufficient > difference that we want users to bump into it in order to > understand that there has been an implementation change? When I implemented the BPF_JITTER, some people complained that "jitter" sounds pretty bad for networking guys. ;-) Seriously, there is no serious technical reason to rename the kernel option but I wanted to make it simpler. Also, I don't see any "upgrade hurdle" because BPF_JITTER was not turned on by default in GENERIC kernels. Jung-uk Kim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQwOLvAAoJECXpabHZMqHO23EH/24HP+GgzcdMlRzlnWGuYfN1 J8VD58ZzmIc3te/usGsioMB6UXS2ThLH+t8U3gxXIqOqWHxI2sEwqEJmfOk47L7m SZRHcwRaZzF7vMPJcJy8ayQzEK6LqRTLzbavDgjshXRn3lUXzlVQKVi/sKp3K0VL ZwMPj827l1tFtOSA81FPaBRfsNXgBjEle8UTNGhoRZLHEE9UR6jHnrhTxN155IZx P3RZBspfeI1ODGxk2nh6hFQaEZ6TNBq51jRlAtrmzalxRefPGyMcFei/8mywTBqq cP+br1fLLnu1oAeF5HJzYo1eJ4RQndwpouBMY4hZy1CihfM9dCuukV9wtUZtI8s= =GGqN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----