Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:04:12 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing. Message-ID: <20080507074647.B47338@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <4820C8CE.8010309@elischer.org> References: <4816D1D2.7010603@elischer.org> <20080506202940.K47338@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4820C8CE.8010309@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> The patch can be found at >>> http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff >>> (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) >>> >>> or source can be taken from perforce at: >>> //depot/user/julian/routing/src >> >> So after looking at the patch a bit more again, could you add wrapper >> functions for those like you have done for the old KPI (rtrequest, >> rtrequest1, > > do you really want to do the extra work instructions? > ... >> >> The defines will not give you a stable KPI and having that changed again >> if you are going with a prefix for each AF would be a pain if the _fib >> versions >> are going to change in the future. > > hmm fair enough... but let me outline my plans and thoughts > so we can see if you still want this.. > [ ... ] > > This all however is not ABI compatible so could not go back to 7.x > and I want to check in an initial version that can go back to 7.x > which sort of suggests to me that adding in_xxx functions is > not really required, until I do the next step. > 7.x will never get the next step. because the ABI is already set > in stone for 7.x. > > I would make the in_xxx stubs in the next step in 8.x. > after the MFC to 7.x of the ABI compat version. > > > let me know what you think. Leaving aside any upcoming enhancement if what we have now is what is going into 7 and possibly 6 we should do the wrapper functions. The point is RELENG_7 will live for $(last release + 2 years) so I guess till 2011 or maybe later. No idea what would happen there in all that time. If people start adding support for other AFs we cannot say that the *_fib variants are not going to change so having the in_* stable sounds like a good thing for 6 and 7. Am I missing anything obvious? I don't mind if they are going to significantly change again in 8 a few weeks later. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Stop bit received. Insert coin for new game.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080507074647.B47338>