From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 07:38:20 2005 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 E417216A4E3; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:38:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7936543D41; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:38:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de ([129.247.173.6]) by smtp-1.dlr.de over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:38:15 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:38:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt_h@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: <20050416154049.B64125@fledge.watson.org> Message-ID: <20050418093638.B1882@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <20050415173711.I658@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050416154049.B64125@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2005 07:38:15.0577 (UTC) FILETIME=[94F9D890:01C543E9] cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: De-orbitting ATM-HARP X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:38:20 -0000 On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Robert Watson wrote: RW> RW>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Harti Brandt wrote: RW> RW>> not sure whether this is actually off-topic. Some time ago I asked on RW>> freebsd-atm who would have a problem when we remove HARP (netatm, hfa) from RW>> 6. I got only two or three answers which said 'go for it'. Nobody said that RW>> he would have a problem. So should we do it and when? Perhaps the best time RW>> is before 6.0. That would be in the next two weeks as I understand. RW>> RW>> While there I would also remove everything from netnatm that is not needed RW>> by NgATM. This is mainly the socket interface. I'm not aware of any RW>> application that uses it. Any thoughts on this? RW> RW>One of the concerns I have with the ATM stacks present in the system is that RW>none appears to be MPSAFE. I am currently unable to perform any ATM-related RW>testing, and so don't feel comfortable starting on locking work on the ATM RW>components. If we can remove unused ATM code, that makes the overall task of RW>getting the last bits of the network stack MPSAFE much easier. NgATM is MPSAFE to the extend that netgraph is MPSAFE. The drivers I've written are MPSAFE too to the extend the interface driver framework is MPSAFE (think of calling interface routines while the driver is unloading and so on. There was some discussion about how to fix this, but it's still there). RW>BTW, have you tried pinging freebsd-net? Ok. I'll do that today. harti