From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 3 00:05:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: net@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB83F16A41F; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:05:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE0543D6E; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:05:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5AD8F5CB87; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ps@mu.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.119]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECCD81D01; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:50:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CE155473; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:50:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 538) id 360F337B416; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 147642E8209; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by hub.freebsd.org (bulk_mailer v1.12); Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:50:53 -0800 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEF437B405; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fB7Lns1135628; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:49:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C112A14.21F08D50@tel.fer.hr> References: <200112071926.fB7JQx301437@mass.dis.org> <3C112A14.21F08D50@tel.fer.hr> To: Marko Zec , Mike Smith From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Status: RO Lines: 52 Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Poul-Henning Kamp , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request to back out Luigis polled-net patch in -stable. X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:05:07 -0000 X-Original-Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:49:51 -0500 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:05:07 -0000 At 9:44 PM +0100 12/7/01, Marko Zec wrote: >Mike Smith wrote: > > > I would also like to point to the parallel piece of code: Jun-Itohs >> > ALTQ for which he reliably has maintained a patch relative to the >> > 4.X branch and which despite various peoples requests have not > > > haphazardly been committed into -stable. > > >> Yes; this is an excellent example of how it can be done better. > >Sorry guys, but aren't you comparing apples with oranges? They are comparing how two changes were made. Not what the changes actually *do*, but the path the changes took to get into -stable. In that sense, they are not comparing apples to oranges. They are comparing the conveyor belts under the apples vs the conveyor belts the oranges were allowed to use. >Concerning the request for removal of the polling code, I personally >as a BSD rookie cannot judge your arguments properly, but I must >admit that the wording and intonation of pkh's note wasn't very >pleasant... Poul-Henning included one comment about "track records" which may have been a bit harsh, but if you ignore that one sentence than everything he said seemed pretty reasoned (ie, "calmly thought out", as opposed to "emotional outburst"), and pretty reasonable. I think PHK and Mike Smith have made a pretty good case, but I will admit that I don't know all of the issues involved. I suspect the other side of this debate is that Luigi's change is meant for high-load situations, and very very very few people are running a 5.0-current system in those kinds of high-load situations. I can see that being a good reason to put it in stable, but even with this good reason, I think it might be better to back the change out of stable until AFTER 4.5 is released. This change did not go thru the "normal routine" for changes, and as such I do think any developer has the right to make a case that the change should be backed out. I *like* what the change is trying to do, and the methods it is using certainly sound interesting. But I don't think it would hurt to have it looked over a bit more before committing it to -stable. That's just my opinion, as I watch this debate from the sidelines. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message