From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 23 16:05:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0713F9C; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:05:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.64.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB298FC18; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9NG51Zt086951; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:05:01 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9NG51Ek086950; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:05:01 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:05:01 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: svn commit: r241931 - in head/sys: conf kern Message-ID: <20121023160501.GB70741@FreeBSD.org> References: <201210231419.q9NEJjYH082863@svn.freebsd.org> <20121023144211.GX70741@FreeBSD.org> <5086B24C.9000606@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5086B24C.9000606@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:05:09 -0000 On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> There shouldn't be any users. Zero copy send is broken and A> responsible for random kernel crashes. Zero copy receive isn't A> supported by any modern driver. Both are useless to dangerous. A> A> The main problem with ZERO_COPY_SOCKETS was that it sounded great A> and who wouldn't want to have zero copy sockets? Unfortunately A> it doesn't work that way. Okay, it appeared that there are users, even on current@ mailing list during couple of hours of exposition. Can we keep the old option as compatibility? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.