From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 16 14:41:12 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id ED3DB16A4CE; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:41:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B89FE43D1F; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:41:12 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CF646B23;
	Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:41:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050415173711.I658@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
Message-ID: <20050416154049.B64125@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20050415173711.I658@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: De-orbitting ATM-HARP
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:41:13 -0000


On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Harti Brandt wrote:

> not sure whether this is actually off-topic. Some time ago I asked on 
> freebsd-atm who would have a problem when we remove HARP (netatm, hfa) 
> from 6. I got only two or three answers which said 'go for it'. Nobody 
> said that he would have a problem. So should we do it and when? Perhaps 
> the best time is before 6.0. That would be in the next two weeks as I 
> understand.
>
> While there I would also remove everything from netnatm that is not 
> needed by NgATM. This is mainly the socket interface. I'm not aware of 
> any application that uses it. Any thoughts on this?

One of the concerns I have with the ATM stacks present in the system is 
that none appears to be MPSAFE.  I am currently unable to perform any 
ATM-related testing, and so don't feel comfortable starting on locking 
work on the ATM components.  If we can remove unused ATM code, that makes 
the overall task of getting the last bits of the network stack MPSAFE much 
easier.

BTW, have you tried pinging freebsd-net?

Robert N M Watson