Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 27 May 2006 06:14:52 +1000
From:      Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>
To:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
Cc:        Gordon Bergling <gbergling@0xfce3.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
Subject:   Re: Take 2: new IP Checksum Code from DragonFlyBSD
Message-ID:  <20060526201452.GF744@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060526133017.224cff08@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
References:  <20060524180802.GA59176@central.0xfce3.net> <200605250517.12054.max@love2party.net> <20060525104000.GA4962@central.0xfce3.net> <20060525115447.GB724@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <17525.55617.272397.806798@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20060526133017.224cff08@Magellan.Leidinger.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2006-May-25 12:40:00 +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote:                    
>patch doesn't touch any arch !i386 and derivates, so I don't see any reason  
>why it shouldn't be included.                                                

On Fri, 2006-May-26 13:30:17 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>The current code is a maze of assembly and macros, the new one is
>straight forward C and a little bit of assembly. And the new one is
>also known to work in DragonFlyBSD. Do you expect *this* code to act
>differently between FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD?

I don't expect the code itself to act differently.  But I don't know
if FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD have different expectations of the code -
probably they don't but someone (the proponent of the change) needs to
confirm this.

>What's the technical backing of your preference to stick with the
>current code? How does the technical backing of your preference compare
>to the technical arguments I presented in this thread regarding the
>priority of the arguments?

I was responding to Gordon's comments above.  If the code is better and
there _are_ technical arguments for FreeBSD to use it, then we should.
"I don't see any reason not to use it" is not justification for changing
critical code.

-- 
Peter Jeremy



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060526201452.GF744>