From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 29 10:07:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C4416A424 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EAC43D4C for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07AE46C2D for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:07:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: arch@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20060315004530.B5861@fledge.watson.org> Message-ID: <20060329100513.D19236@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060315004530.B5861@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: netatm: plan for removal unless an active maintainer is found X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:46 -0000 On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > In order to begin to merge revised socket/pcb code, required to fix a number > of current races manifesting in the TCP code under load, and required for > breaking out the tcbinfo lock which is a significant bottleneck in high > performance TCP and multi-processor TCP scalability, I will disconnect > netatm and dependent components from the build on April 1, 2006. At that > point, I will merge updated socket and pcb reference counting. Reminder: April 1 approaches. I've merged changes to many non-netinet protocols in support of the approaching socket/pcb reference model changes, but have the netinet changes depend on completing socket layer changes that are believed not to work with netatm as they stand. I'll be posting the socket and netinet changes to arch@ today; I've posted them previously to other lists, such as current@. Robert N M Watson