Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:09:19 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Julien Ridoux <jrid@cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au>, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r227778 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <201111291309.20419.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4ED5049E.60307@freebsd.org> References: <201111210417.pAL4HOdi023556@svn.freebsd.org> <4ED4D89D.9000904@freebsd.org> <4ED5049E.60307@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 11:13 am, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 11/30/11 00:05, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > > On 11/28/11 14:59, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > >>> On 11/23/11 17:42, Julien Ridoux wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>> What is your favourite option? > >>> > >>> FreeBSD parlance is to ask what colour you would like to paint > >>> the bikeshed ;) > >>> > >>> As I've never experienced the pain John refers to, I'll defer > >>> to the wisdom of others on whether the proposed patch will > >>> create pain down the road. I think it's ok, but if consensus is > >>> 8bytes per packet isn't going to break the bank, I guess we > >>> just go for it - but I guess I am cautious about this route as > >>> we can push a lot of packets per second through the stack. > >> > >> Since other people seem to be keeping quiet, I'll add that I'm > >> in favor of just always adding the 8 bytes per packet. > > > > Julien and I discussed this at length today, and agree that for > > head, we'll add the new bh_ffcounter member to the BPF header > > unconditionally. > > > > Thanks to you and John for the input. > > > > I'm going to revert r227778 in order to start form a clean slate, > > and add two separate patches. One will reintegrate FFCLOCK > > support with BPF without breaking the ABI. A follow up patch will > > bump the ffclock version and add the bh_ffcounter to the bpf > > header (after the timestamp member). Then a final patch will bump > > __FreeBSD_version and add a note to UPDATING about recompiling to > > get kernel/world in sync, which should seal the deal. > > Here's the first of the patches: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~lstewart/patches/misc/ffclock_bpf_intact >abi_10.x.r228130.patch I only glanced at it but it looks very close to what I wanted to suggest. Thanks! Jung-uk Kim > Julien, it's basically what you sent me today, but is against > vanilla bpf.c/bpf.h (I decided at the last minute that reverting > r227778 first was going to be cleaner and easier to follow). > Relative to what you sent, it also has some tweaks to reduce the > diff size, remove the unnecessary uses of > BPF_T_FLAG()/BPF_T_FORMAT() and fix the "(u_char *)&mb" buglet. > > If I don't hear any objections, I'll commit it tomorrow. > > Cheers, > Lawrence
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201111291309.20419.jkim>