Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:19:34 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: afexists() Message-ID: <F1D28BBA-2956-46FF-A71E-B08CE20BFEDF@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DE55A48.8090508@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DE55A48.8090508@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 31, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Hey,
> I don't have any specific objections to this change, although adding =
more calls to afexists() highlights an issue I addressed previously in =
looking at network.subr. On my system (with IPv6) it's called over 25 =
times at each boot, which given that it's a moderately expensive test =
indicates an opportunity for optimization.
Yeah, it's still a lot cheaper than going into the various =
configurations running ifconfigs etc. Especially it does not yield =
errors this way;)
> Attached is a patch which caches a positive result for support for a =
given address family. I don't think caching negative results is a good =
idea since that could change as the boot progresses.
Not yet for inet or inet6 (or ipx I think) but atm might be loadable. =
Looking ahead that's certainly true though maybe also considering =
virtualization maybe.
>=20
> I plan to commit this on Friday if there are no objections.
I am not sure it helps but I see no regression, so if you want, feel =
free to go ahead.
Bjoern
--=20
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F1D28BBA-2956-46FF-A71E-B08CE20BFEDF>