From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 08:43:19 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636661065694; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:43:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381828FC17; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:43:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B3246B37; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 04:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:43:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Roman Divacky In-Reply-To: <20080930162606.GA46594@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <200809271014.m8RAENka041457@repoman.freebsd.org> <48DE5C4F.8040807@micom.mng.net> <48DF2010.6030309@micom.mng.net> <20080930162606.GA46594@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Ganbold , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw2.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:43:19 -0000 On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Roman Divacky wrote: >> Good news. We'll want to keep an eye on this one as the 7.0 release cycle >> progresses, and there may be other unexpected edge case problems from the >> rwlock change. On the whole it seems to have been very successful, but the >> view that -CURRENT doesn't receive a whole lot of stress testing is >> reinforced... > > I think this is a little different case... I guess people are willing to > test -CURRENT on their desktops etc. but not on "servers". ie. when you have > immediate access to the machine you easily use -CURRENT but not on the > remote server. > > Also, people don't tend to run firewalls on their desktops (as opposed to > servers where they dont). This is why I think this bug slipped. Not that > -CURRENT is so badly tested... Common code paths are reasonably tested by -CURRENT, but coverage of not-so-common paths is basically ignored. Experience with TCP regressions last year suggests that little or no interoperability occurs in HEAD, and that it's easy for quite serious regressions in stability and performance to go unnoticed for extended periods. This isn't indicative of a "problem", in that it is expected that normal user populations don't track the -CURRENT branch, it isn't put into heavy production use, etc, but is something we need to recognize: three months in HEAD is not enough to declare a feature ready for production. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge