From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 29 21:35:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C1ABC2; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:35:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo.unipi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD9629E1; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:35:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id eo20so388122lab.40 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UJbPHBJ5U+JO635o1N/VBaC+cD0OeJweC3LtPpfS8XE=; b=y4eWumh4Ll8thrCUKpXW3ffd74f2+ccEKrVOL5HXLtiDedEP0A2bEx1LBixV0TUFax ZWPb0tbPwCXvbiIiG895zkWkDXe+MGLZdpP8l75JgvObH0Lfyxcecv88CF/3YITj8p8/ +QFQt3khQEKa8BxelP4cefX3OVTHncV9JowoDaLRhNwuHpSiwFPVX12m5COEHeBvIT+e z8H407LrDOz2lhshBO2+7fjjZYZDsnRY3yQ/A6hp4kdijd+PqginDOkOTgkxTaG/c5q6 j8ioPEPGRp3x54/vQLwpiymAfzl5OR1uAAu1rHkWYSSwEUrdK4UCvZSrRDkh40oCDW0+ WNoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.167.99 with SMTP id zn3mr1317789lbb.34.1383082531605; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: rizzo.unipi@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.172.105 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52701F7E.2060604@freebsd.org> References: <40948D79-E890-4360-A3F2-BEC34A389C7E@lakerest.net> <526FFED9.1070704@freebsd.org> <13BF1F55-EC13-482B-AF7D-59AE039F877D@lakerest.net> <52701F7E.2060604@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:35:31 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LWJQwASElfs9xLH9VsySXAdty9I Message-ID: Subject: Re: MQ Patch. From: Luigi Rizzo To: Andre Oppermann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Randall Stewart , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 29 Oct 2013 21:35:34 -0000 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 29.10.2013 21:20, Randall Stewart wrote: > >> So, to conclude: i fully support any plan to design something that lets us >>> implement scheduling (and qos, if you want to call it this way) >>> in a reasonable way, but what is in your patch now does not really >>> seem to improve the current situation in any way. >>> >> >> Its a step towards fixing that I am allowed to give. I can see >> why Company's get frustrated with trying to give anything to the project. >> > > Well, that we have a problem in that area is known and acknowledged and > there is active work in this area going on. > > It would be very problematic if every vendor were just to through some > stuff over the fence and have it integrated as is. It would quickly > become very messy. In many specific purpose geared products a number > of shortcuts can be taken that may not be appropriate for a general > purpose OS that does more than routing. > that is exactly the issue. It is not just FreeBSD that has strict policies on what gets accepted. Several times (though mostly in the past) I myself have been suggested to reconsider submissions that were too intrusive or lacking from an architectural point of view. And as much i could have been annoyed, i have to recognise that the criticism was legitimate and eventually led to better implementations. Of course one has much more freedom when playing with a standalone component (say netmap, or a device driver, or SCTP...) which does not interfere with the rest of the kernel, and possibly even fills a hole in the OS. But this is not one of those cases. cheers luigi