From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 9 09:19:39 2004 Return-Path: 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 643FA16A4CE; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:19:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.vertex.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [212.19.129.142]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA6943D58; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:19:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bp@vertex.kz) Received: from lion.butya.kz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.vertex.kz (Postfix) with SMTP id DB9975BDB; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:19:32 +0600 (ALMT) Received: from relay.vertex.kz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.vertex.kz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B197B5BA9; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:19:32 +0600 (ALMT) Received: by relay.vertex.kz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A97CC5AF7; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:19:32 +0600 (ALMT) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:19:32 +0600 From: Boris Popov To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20041209091932.GA14988@vertex.kz> References: <79552.1102327805@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] IPX and NWFS to be killed in -current. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:19:39 -0000 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