Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 17:52:57 +0100 From: Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 7e51bc6cdd5c - main - pf: Introduce unhandled_af() Message-ID: <D9419EA8-03F7-44E6-AC5F-56B098821E0E@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Z8h_Lz5WmnoMFJ5i@cell.glebi.us> References: <202503040805.52485pYn088632@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <Z8h_Lz5WmnoMFJ5i@cell.glebi.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 Mar 2025, at 17:43, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:05:51AM +0000, Kristof Provost wrote: > K> The branch main has been updated by kp: > K> > K> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=3D7e51bc6cdd5c317109e25= b0b64230d00d68dceb3 > K> > K> commit 7e51bc6cdd5c317109e25b0b64230d00d68dceb3 > K> Author: Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org> > K> AuthorDate: 2025-03-03 16:26:39 +0000 > K> Commit: Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org> > K> CommitDate: 2025-03-04 08:05:37 +0000 > K> > K> pf: Introduce unhandled_af() > K> > K> For cases where code conditionally does something based on an ad= dress family > K> and later assumes one of the paths was taken. This was initiall= y just calls > K> to panic until guenther suggested a function to reduce the amoun= t of strings > K> needed. > K> > K> This reduces the amount of noise with static analysers and acts = as a sanity > K> check. > K> > K> ok guenther@ bluhm@ > K> > K> Obtained from: OpenBSD, jsg <jsg@openbsd.org>, ba4138390b > K> Sponsored by: Rubicon Communications, LLC ("Netgate") > > Heh, enum solves the problem at compilation time. I will try to revisi= t the review > that had this idea. > Oh yeah, I=E2=80=99d forgotten about that one. In any event, this is useful as a diff-reduction exercise, if nothing els= e. I=E2=80=99m hoping to be able to continue importing OpenBSD patches, b= ut there=E2=80=99s still a very long way to go before we=E2=80=99re all t= he way caught up. And even if/when we get there there=E2=80=99ll still be a substantial del= ta, because we don=E2=80=99t want to drop support for older syntax in the= way OpenBSD has, and we want to keep stuff like your multicore work and = the vnet support. And the SCTP support. And the basic Ethernet support. Anyway, lots of random thoughts to say: that=E2=80=99d be nice to have, b= ut certainly isn=E2=80=99t urgent. Best regards, Kristof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D9419EA8-03F7-44E6-AC5F-56B098821E0E>