From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 15 08:47:57 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A8337B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04ACE43F3F
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 87037 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 15:47:55 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 15:47:55 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:47:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <3F13E69D.3050001@tcoip.com.br>
Message-ID: <20030715104206.C14114@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <20030714164426.R8225@odysseus.silby.com>
	<3F13E69D.3050001@tcoip.com.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 4.x mbuf binary compatibility; can it be broken?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:47:58 -0000


On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:

> I think that breaking the ABI at the winter of 4.x is a bad idea. It
> would be bad at it's spring, but given the seriousness of the matter,
> perhaps a necessity. At this point, though? Dubious proposition...
>
> --
> Daniel C. Sobral                   (8-DCS)

Well, as it turns out, the machine which is actively exhibiting the
problem has had a NIC swap is went into active service, so I won't be
getting the test results which might justify an ABI breakage too soon.

In the meantime, I've been looking more, and it appears that I should be
able to hack around the limit without breaking the ABI.  (There may be a
performance penalty, but it should be extremely minor.)

Mike "Silby" Silbersack