From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 31 17:22:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264CF37B401; Sat, 31 May 2003 17:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24FF43F85; Sat, 31 May 2003 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h510MCrN039963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h510MAOs012989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h510MATe002586; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h510M9cm002585; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:09 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20030601002208.GG503@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <200305311300.h4VD0GUE084477@fledge.watson.org> <20030531142459.A90361@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030531142459.A90361@xorpc.icir.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.1-BETA alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: re@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1-RELEASE TODO X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 00:22:20 -0000 On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:24:59PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:00:16AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | Issue | Status | Responsible | Description | > > |------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------------------| > > | | | | There are reports of | > > | ipfw/ipfw2 | | | alignment problems with | > > | alignment issues | In progress | Luigi Rizzo | ipfw and/or ipfw2 on | > > | on alpha/sparc64 | | | 64-bit platforms | > > | | | | (specifically alpha and | > > | | | | sparc64). | > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > i posted patches and a detailed description for this item > 3 weeks ago to re@ and then the same was forwarded a couple of weeks > ago to the relevant lists (ipfw, sparc64, alpha) and got no > useful feedback (in detail, two message: one 'cannot apply the patch', > the other one 'it dumps core' without further details). A gdb stacktrace is much more than "without further details". It happened inside bcopy. I asumed that the stacktrace including the sourceline calling bcopy would be enough. If you need more then you should say so - I can't guess. > As i do not have access to these platforms, all i can do is provide > code and make sure that it compiles (which i did, using a cross-build), > but for running it (part of the problem involves the kernel) i need > someone with root&console access to test them. > > I would interpret the absence of feedback as a "nobody cares enough" > (which is perfectly fine given that these platforms are a negligible > fraction of the installed base, there are more important issues to > address and these particular ones should have a relatively trivial > fix). It's a chick egg problem - if software regulary fails then less users will use such hardware or at least avoid that kind of software. Don't get me wrong: ipfw is good software which I use daily (on i386) and I'm happy about the recent features you did, but there are two sides of the story. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de