From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 12 11:21:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168B41065673 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A4C8FC1E for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Lhiz1-0002mO-9L for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:51 +0000 Received: from 195.208.174.178 ([195.208.174.178]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:51 +0000 Received: from vadim_nuclight by 195.208.174.178 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:51 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org From: Vadim Goncharov Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:38 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Nuclear Lightning @ Tomsk, TPU AVTF Hostel Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <20090301153010.GA58942@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org> <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> <20090302190157.GA33704@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090306161028.GA12322@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.208.174.178 X-Comment-To: Luigi Rizzo User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) Sender: news Subject: Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:21:52 -0000 Hi Luigi Rizzo! On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:10:28 +0100; Luigi Rizzo wrote about 'Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)': >>>>>>>Hi, I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files >>>>>>>to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like to >>>>>>>move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place. Any >>>>>>>objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? Also, I can't help >> >> [...] >> >>> To further clarify, my plan is the following: >> >>> - leave ip_fw.h and ip_dummynet.h in /sys/netinet in case >>> userland code is dependent on their location; >>> - create /sys/netinet/ipfw/ to hold the kernel .c files related to >>> ipfw and possibly dummynet (and also their private headers if any); >> >> Exactly that and nothing more? I'm currently working on extending ipfw for >> Foundation with userland interface will be changed (and I thinking about >> introducing modules), what else do you plan to do? > Generally speaking, the kernel/userland interface will remain > unchanged both at binary and source level, which means no > backward incompatible changes in the sockopt numbers and messages, > and no changes in the location and userland-visible parts of > the headers. > In practical terms, ip_fw.h might lose the definition of > struct ip_fw_args, or the prototypes for the various kernel > functions. The #ifdef _KERNEL part of ip_dummynet.h should > also go to some other file. > If you want to contact me, on the list or offline, to discuss what > you want to do or what kind of 'modules' (kernel or userland ?) are > you thinking about, i'd be more than happy to help. I do not know whether this will be polite to discuss in details while Foundation has not yet announced my work :-/ I hope they'll do it in a week or so... I could say that at least dynamic rules and userland API/ABI will go under serious incompatible changes, so any your changing headers is OK, but what do you want to change inside kernel *.c is interesting to me. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]