Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:47:13 +0000 From: brian.somers@db.com To: julian@whistle.com Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: netgraph into -stable. (fwd) Message-ID: <0025682C.0035DEFD.00@sdbo1003.srv.uk.deuba.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[lame mailer alert... my appologies]
To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@FreeBSD.ORG,
brian@Awfulhak.org
Subject: Re: netgraph into -stable. (fwd)
In-Reply-To: Message from Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
of "Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:52:23 PST."
<Pine.BSF.4.20.9911162146300.1657-100000@home.elischer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
--------
I have two opinions here.
First, netgraph does a lot of good things, and is incredibly flexible,
so I'm keen on seeing it go into -stable. It seems to work quite
well with PPPoE and solves all of my ``how to get ppp into the
kernel'' problems.
Second, although netgraph has been well tested at Whistle, it's quite
suseptible to problems when abused. I've been unintentionally
abusing it of late, and there are a number of (probably trivial) bugs.
I'd suggest bringing it into -stable, but *not* putting it in the
-stable kernel by default, perhaps marking it as experimental in LINT
until there are no known bugs.
If there are no objections, I'll MFC the ppp stuff after netgraph
is MFCd, and then enable netgraph/PPPoE in the sysinstall version of
ppp in -current only.
> I admit that it doesn't seem a minor addition, but
> I'd like to get netgraph down into 3.x now that it has been shaken down a
> bit in 4.x and to give it some time to settle before 3.4.
>
> reasons:
> 1/ DSL in Canada is now switching rapidly to PPPoE.
> 1A/ *Newsflash* mindspring has just gone PPPoE-only.
> 1B/ UUnet is switching to PPPoE.
> 2/ PPP will start using it soon (other than with pppoe)
> and we'd like ONE version not 2 for Brian to maintain.
> 3/ ISPs who may want to use the PPPOE server side are generally running
> 3.x, not 4.x
>
> Supporting facts:
> Netgraph is written to generally be non intrusive.
> No code is changed in the non "options NETGRAPH" case and only minor
> changes are made in normal code paths in the NETGRAPH case.
> (with the exception of the if_sr and if_ar drivers).
>
> And last but not least:
> We are actually developing Netgraph under 3.3 so we are already keeping
> two source trees in sync, 3.3. and 4.0 so we might as well let others get
> at it.
>
> Anyone violently object?
>
> Nothing that you are already using should be effected, only netgraph users
> (and that's exactly 2 of you) :-)
>
> Julian
> (please make sure I'm at least in the cc line as I'm not on -stable as a
> rule)
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0025682C.0035DEFD.00>