From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 5 17:08:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 30A5A16A4DD for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:08:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635AE43D58 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:08:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 34107 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2006 16:53:35 -0000 Received: from dotat.atdotat.at (HELO [62.48.0.47]) ([62.48.0.47]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Sep 2006 16:53:35 -0000 Message-ID: <44FDAF08.20407@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:08:24 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Prafulla Deuskar References: <2a41acea0609011551v40338539u4eef48d091dd12ab@mail.gmail.com> <44F9384C.9070902@freebsd.org> <2a41acea0609021741y481a04c0r42902166eaba78d7@mail.gmail.com> <20060905162542.GA63869@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060905162542.GA63869@hub.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net , freebsd-current , Jack Vogel Subject: Re: RFC: TSO patch for current X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:08:31 -0000 Prafulla Deuskar wrote: > Jack Vogel [jfvogel@gmail.com] wrote: > >>On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >> >>>I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks >>>very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If we take code from >>>the other BSDs we have to remark this in the emails we send with >>>patches and the commit message (otherwise we get accused of 'stealing >>>without attribution'). >> >>I dont know that I'd call it a straight port, rather I was working from some >>prototype code that Prafulla had working back on 4.7, but I think at that >>time that he may have patterned it after NetBSD. > > I don't think NetBSD had TSO support in 2002 when I first did the 4.7 patch > for internal testing. OK, perhaps they lifted it from your patch then. They just looks awfully similiar that's why I thought it came from NetBSD. -- Andre