Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:24:30 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org>, Kip Macy <kmacy@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r191255 - in head/sys: amd64/conf conf i386/conf net Message-ID: <4A2EA8DE.2080105@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <4A2E9994.7070907@freebsd.org> References: <200904190016.n3J0G4rA090911@svn.freebsd.org> <20090609143729.R22887@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <3c1674c90906091012u26b0e823q57a7ea1f42eef22d@mail.gmail.com> <4A2E9994.7070907@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sam Leffler wrote: > Kip Macy wrote: >>> I think FLOWTABLE does nto belong into DEFAULTS. Really DEFAULTS was >>> meant for "You cannot boot without this" and if people start to weaken >>> it, DEFAULTS will soon be the new GENERIC. That said I am not sure it >>> belongs to GENERIC either. >>> >> >> I can either push it in to GENERIC or I can change it to NOFLOWTABLE. >> If you want to remove it from GENERIC then we're going to have to have >> a lengthy discussion about what most FreeBSD users actually use and >> gut GENERIC as it stands now. The fact is, most FreeBSD users have >> sufficiently few peers that flowtable is a win over using the routing >> table on every lookup. >> > > I believe the question was mainly about mechanics, FLOWTABLE doesn't > belong in DEFAULTS but it may well belong in GENERIC. > > Sam > If you want it to be an opt-out feature, wrap the code in #ifndef DISABLE_FLOWTABLE. I agree that what was put into DEFAULTS is inappropriate for what DEFAULTS was meant to do. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A2EA8DE.2080105>