From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 17 18:11:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9018337B401 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4B943FAF for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (verified OK)) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FD051; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:11:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BB18F78C66; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:11:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:11:52 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Martin Blapp Message-ID: <20030418011152.GE4001@madman.celabo.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Martin Blapp , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org References: <20030417201824.J6156@cvs.imp.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030417201824.J6156@cvs.imp.ch> X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i-ja.1 cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: new NSS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:11:54 -0000 On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:24:29PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote: > IMHO threads-safe versions of gethostby* are very important. getaddrinfo > is already threads-safe. Do you plan to do this yourself ? And if so, > before 5.1/5.2 ? Yes, before 5.1. I'm already using some modifications for it on my system, but the code is very scary and frankly I think it needs to be reworked. Funny how I'd rather break getpwent than resolver-related stuff :-) > What about the nsscache implemenation we talked once ? I guess with > the work you have done this is a lot easier, right ? Yes, we pretty much have to have standard interfaces before we can have a cache. Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine http://www.celabo.org/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se