From owner-freebsd-net Sat Jun 8 10:10:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tesla.distributel.net (nat.MTL.distributel.NET [66.38.181.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416A937B401 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by tesla.distributel.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g58H97a92214; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:09:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:09:07 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic To: John Polstra Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG, archie@dellroad.org Subject: Re: m->m_pkthdr.header Message-ID: <20020608130907.A92176@unixdaemons.com> References: <200206071955.g57JtrJ65814@arch20m.dellroad.org> <200206081616.g58GG6v03893@vashon.polstra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200206081616.g58GG6v03893@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:16:06AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:16:06AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > In article <200206071955.g57JtrJ65814@arch20m.dellroad.org>, > Archie Cobbs wrote: > > > > I'd like to get rid of this mbuf field "m->m_pkthdr.header". > [...] > > Any comments/objections? > > Yes, please bear in mind that if you change the layout of the mbuf > structures you will probably break binary compatibility with various > commercial network drivers that are shipped in binary form. That's a > big pain for those of us who are forced to use such drivers. For that > reason I don't think you should make this kind of change in -stable. > Current is obviously a different kettle of fish, but even there you > should add fillers to replace any structure elements you remove, if > possible. While I agree that -STABLE is a more sensitive fish (which is partly why I really don't enjoy dealing with it -- this argument always comes up), I think that these types of changes absolutely need to go into -CURRENT. We shouldn't have to worry about "breaking binary compatibility" in our development releases. I can almost guarantee that a lot of stuff isn't going to work without a rebuild when people decide to go from 4.x to 5.0 anyway. Placing dummy-fillers is just annoying. > John > -- > John Polstra > John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA > "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message