Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:19:32 +0600 From: Boris Popov <bp@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] IPX and NWFS to be killed in -current. Message-ID: <20041209091932.GA14988@vertex.kz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041206165120.74271A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <79552.1102327805@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041206165120.74271A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:56:21PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > > FYI, I have a substantial work in progress in the netperf branch to bring > fine-grained locking to IPX/SPX, as well as to clean up a number of > elements of its implementions (for example, moving the the queue(9) > macros. While I'm currently a bit stalled on it due to being overwhelmed > at work (etc), my hope was to get the Giant-free IPX pieces working early > next year. I think there's a reference to this on the SMPng page showing These are perfect news. As the former active maintainer of IPX protocol stack and the author of NWFS I'm receive notable amount of complains about IPX support in 5.X as people upgrade boxes from 4.X. For some people it works but nwfs doesn't and vise versa. Addressing phk's request about removal: there was exactly 93 questions related to ipx/nwfs in November. This indeed encourages me to fix them. Although, I can't promise anything at this point because earning on life doesn't left much free time these days. -- Boris Popov http://rbp.euro.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041209091932.GA14988>