From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 14 2:34:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC7F37B405 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from peter3.wemm.org ([12.232.27.13]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011214103436.LVGE403.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@peter3.wemm.org> for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:34:36 +0000 Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fBEAYas51342 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:34:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7931438CC; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:34:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Solved (Re: -current vs. -stable network performance) In-Reply-To: <20011214021109.B46985@iguana.aciri.org> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:34:36 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20011214103436.7931438CC@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luigi Rizzo wrote: [..] > The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did > not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the > semantics of M_LEADINGSPACE. However I would strongly vote for > committing this change to CURRENT as well, given the huge performance > implications (even if the 21143 were not buggy, not being able to > write into clusters hurts a lot of pieces of the networking stack). Incidently, this is a poster-child example of why fixes are not to go to -stable first. It leads to exactly this sort of lossage. rev 1.44.2.11: ... This does not go in CURRENT as is: as discussed in -net, M_LEADINGSPACE should not check for writability, just report available space, leaving the check to some other piece of code. Unfortunately, some code in the tree depends on M_LEADINGSPACE checking for writability, and so implementing M_LEADINGSPACE in the correct way also requires to fix the incorrect usage. This is what will be done in CURRENT, but for STABLE, this is probably more than we want, and so we are happy (more or less) with this simple fix. ... How about fixing it for real as described in the commit message? Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message