Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 00:18:30 +0000 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp) Message-ID: <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org> References: <20090301153010.GA58942@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> 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 noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files >> related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move them >> (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers) >> to a separate subdirectory ? > > for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in their > own subdirectories. Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's doable. SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a "moving nightmare". I vote for "ipfw" like Sam, BTW. -- Rui Paulo [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkmrJdYACgkQfD8M/ASTygLouQCgivm7VKOGxz443T3q8L6k7lLR XQQAoNkm7fhzghvLZnDVHarrna/ANxGA =Qbs8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51>