From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 22 11:38:56 2004 Return-Path: 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 40FF316A4CE for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:38:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E7543D5D for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:38:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 69162 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 11:38:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Jun 2004 11:38:54 -0000 Message-ID: <40D81A53.FD490D89@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:38:59 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Konovalov References: <40D754D5.1070805@freebsd.org> <20040622115532.W5744@mp2.macomnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New preview patch for ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 22 Jun 2004 11:38:56 -0000 Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > Hi Andre, > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, 23:36+0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Here is the next preview patch for the ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion: > > > > http://www.nrg4u.com/freebsd/ipfw-pfilhooks-and-more-20040621.diff > > > > This patch significantly cleans up ip_input.c and ip_output.c. > > Is it possible to split that ~100KB patch in a logic chunks? One for > phil_hook, one for ip_pcbopt, one for ip_reass etc. Much easier to > review and commit them later. Of course it will be split up. I haven't done this because this is only a preview patch of work in progress. > > Consider this a FYI. It is very much a WIP at the moment. I want > > to get this into the tree in before 5.3 code freeze. > > In fact, our real world tests shown the current -CURRENT comparing to > RELENG_5_2 is in a very bad shape. Is it really worth to commit that > mostly cleanup code before say 6-CURRENT with a chance to > destabilizate -CURRENT a bit more? This will not destabilize -CURRENT anymore. Any errors in the code are seen immediatly. -- Andre