Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 00:33:47 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing. Message-ID: <4822ACDB.6040209@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20080507074647.B47338@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4816D1D2.7010603@elischer.org> <20080506202940.K47338@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4820C8CE.8010309@elischer.org> <20080507074647.B47338@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > 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. ok, check http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff > > > /bz >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4822ACDB.6040209>