From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 2 18:30:28 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F351065735; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:30:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A5B8FC23; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:30:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F74B46B3C; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:30:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:30:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Rui Paulo In-Reply-To: <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20090301153010.GA58942@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org> <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:30:28 -0000 On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> Luigi Rizzo wrote: >>> Hi, I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files >>> to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like to move >>> the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place. Any >>> objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? Also, I can't help >>> noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files related to sctp -- wouldn't >>> it be the case to move them (perhaps with the exception of the userland >>> headers) to a separate subdirectory ? >> >> for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in their own >> subdirectories. > > Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's doable. > > SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a "moving > nightmare". > > I vote for "ipfw" like Sam, BTW. I think massively rearranging things doesn't by us much in terms of beauty, but does give us a lot in terms of hassle, given current assumptions of alignment between the layout of /usr/include and the layout of /usr/src/sys. We'd need to introduce new explicit mappings to install include files in their old locations (which are required by applications), etc. For a change with such a minor benefit, the hassle will be huge. I'm fine with renaming the ipfw .c files and leaving in netinet, but let's not get carried away. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge