Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:07:27 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: netatm: plan for removal unless an active maintainer is found Message-ID: <20060329180727.GA10956@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060329110421.M19236@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060315004530.B5861@fledge.watson.org> <20060329100513.D19236@fledge.watson.org> <20060329123238.B87509@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20060329110421.M19236@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:13:34AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: >=20 > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Harti Brandt wrote: >=20 > >On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > > > >RW>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Robert Watson wrote: > >RW> > >RW>> In order to begin to merge revised socket/pcb code, required to fix= a > >RW>> number of current races manifesting in the TCP code under load, and > >RW>> required for breaking out the tcbinfo lock which is a significant > >RW>> bottleneck in high performance TCP and multi-processor TCP=20 > >scalability, I > >RW>> will disconnect netatm and dependent components from the build on= =20 > >April 1, > >RW>> 2006. At that point, I will merge updated socket and pcb reference > >RW>> counting. > >RW> > >RW>Reminder: April 1 approaches. > >RW> > >RW>I've merged changes to many non-netinet protocols in support of the > >RW>approaching socket/pcb reference model changes, but have the netinet= =20 > >changes > >RW>depend on completing socket layer changes that are believed not to wo= rk=20 > >with > >RW>netatm as they stand. I'll be posting the socket and netinet changes= to > >RW>arch@ today; I've posted them previously to other lists, such as=20 > >current@. > > > >Skip Ford expressed interest in netatm, but he said also that he would= =20 > >continue to work on HARP even when it is removed. So I guess it could be= =20 > >revived in the future (just in the case). I've also sent him my half -ID= T=20 > >driver and he said he will first work on this. When this is ready we hav= e=20 > >all the hardware supported in ngATM which HARP also does. >=20 > I have patches, and plan to commit them, that keep netatm compilable. Th= e=20 > problem is that I am unable to test netatm, and have limited time to try = to=20 > figure it out (and it's significant enough that it requires figuring out)= .=20 I'd be moderatly suprised if it worked at all. None of the ATM code was fun to deal with when I move struct ifnet out of the softc, but IIRC netatm way by far the most confusing. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEKszeXY6L6fI4GtQRAgdLAKCJmAFAFiVpdudClqVgoY9TjrnBgwCgtp6m 9kpy1GutM8ssq1XqfgK3qI0= =APPd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060329180727.GA10956>