From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Sep 20 18:42:40 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3F8E1CF3E for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:42:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42C5C7704D for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0770A21AAF for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hji5tq Rs+XLr++KLU8FRRG+Ta/aYgb3PHFVgqJ91fog=; b=F1UWPOVSgbznktwsVnN3tI y68ovrEbDrpiOQEDlklTDhKKR+d/CzR90tYBwNqRfat+bSBtyojsokptYYjhqbIS Yjk6C3WcYIWfU4zW/ievp7Ua/BIgByPMICyXG5YP1lLMXnw3uZ2CdQyQUxnk7iDQ LebrANyFs7DigzW7z3Q6SifYkGOGlYrJgtfGNuAWb7jt0IZyW1RUwQzY48H/CGhx nQ03QE2TtFURFbhXNbADddjgoJrhhU/dbW3M8qNmXTOtZsCKUz1+R51W/3AA+eEG UfX3kbuX1xik57NFUT6N+Aap+mikO0qD54yGWC4gxbaFyb4T68fEKMF1yMz9Egng == X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id E48AC94739; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1505932952.2556052.1112777680.0118296F@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Josh Paetzel To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-64b08692 Subject: Re: svn commit: r323770 - in stable/11/sys: amd64/conf arm64/conf i386/conf powerpc/conf riscv/conf sparc64/conf In-Reply-To: <20170920182537.GN1055@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:42:32 -0500 References: <201709191651.v8JGpp5v048489@repo.freebsd.org> <2B7D21C6-56EE-4ADE-815C-70477C137A82@gmail.com> <1505915939.3128744.1112434136.0864CA5F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20170920172145.GA80852@FreeBSD.org> <20170920182537.GN1055@FreeBSD.org> X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:42:40 -0000 On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, at 01:25 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:21:45PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > A> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > A> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, at 02:41 AM, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote: > A> > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 09:51, Josh Paetzel > wrote: > A> > > > New Revision: 323770 > A> > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/323770 > A> > > > > A> > > > Log: > A> > > > MFC: 323068 > A> > > > > A> > > > Allow kldload tcpmd5 > A> > > > A> > > Wasn't this reverted on ^/head ? > A> > > A> > Not this one. What was reverted on HEAD was the removal of options > A> > IPSEC from GENERIC. > A> > > A> > The endgoal is options IPSEC and options IPSEC_SUPPORT in GENERIC, > which > A> > will allow someone running GENERIC to kldload tcpmd5. > A> > A> I'll shamelessly steal this thread to ask somewhat related question > that > A> was bothering me since the original botched commit: what is the reason > A> behind IPSEC_SUPPORT option? If it does not cost anything, why not > just > A> optimize it away; if it does imply something more, can you shed some > A> light on why is it needed (and/or might not be)? Thanks, > > The reason is to make loadable ipsec.ko. I actually don't understand > why do we still have IPSEC in GENERIC once it is loadable. Doesn't it > still have performance impact? > > -- > Gleb Smirnoff options IPSEC no longer has a performance impact. gnn@ fixed that. Why IPSEC_SUPPORT can't just get folded in with IPSEC I can't answer. I looked briefly at the code but that didn't tell me anything useful. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel