Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 07:19:34 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Boris Popov <bp@freebsd.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] IPX and NWFS to be killed in -current. Message-ID: <41B85EF6.5090008@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041209091932.GA14988@vertex.kz> References: <79552.1102327805@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041206165120.74271A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20041209091932.GA14988@vertex.kz>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Boris Popov wrote: > 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, This is wonderful news too! If you have any questions or need help with testing, please don't hesitate to ask. Scotthelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41B85EF6.5090008>