From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jul 3 01:55:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA15032 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:55:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA15026 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:55:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id JAA13723; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:25:41 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199807030725.JAA13723@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: how about including dummynet in 2.2.7 ? To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:25:41 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <7114.899454518@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jul 3, 98 01:28:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > So how about including it in the 2.2.7 distribution ? The patches > > I have apply cleanly to 2.2.6, and i can make them work on stable > > with relative ease. > > New features are generally discouraged in the -stable branch, but of yes i know and agree. > course all things are also relative. The biggest reason that new > features are discouraged is because they tend to perturb the system in > ways that make it very hard to ascertain whether it's still "stable" > anymore. If your proposed changes have a very low impact on the rest > of the networking subsystem, low enough that you feel very confident it has indeed very little impact on the rest of the system (*), and i am going to make a few more changes to make it even less intrusive (and thus better suited to a -stable release). The reason i am asking this now is to decide how to prioritize work, depending on whether or not i have to make things ready for 2.2.7. I am pretty happy with any decision -- i can always put up a patchfile to be included in xperimnt/ or whatever it is called now. The point was just that perhaps a bw management tool could be a nice feature for ISPs, and so why not try to integrate it. cheers luigi (*) the current version actually adds a new field in the m_pkthdr struct of an mbuf, but i am going to remove this modification since it is just a useless complication in the non SMP case. -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message