Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 13:01:49 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Svatopluk Kraus <onwahe@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: domain_add(xxx) after domainfinalize... Message-ID: <20140802200149.GO50495@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFHCsPW-ZD9%2BfPy_y1N5LmT%2BoCoSxoznxJNr=3UvDwEtRrdi6A@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140801193403.GE50495@funkthat.com> <CAFHCsPXPZ3M2xk=P4XJvDx-NGZ0_GS573Ay2%2BMmnb21w3N%2B3UQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140801222118.GH50495@funkthat.com> <CAFHCsPXYBJJF4YC4dO1fsPVVc6wfY3j5xmpjip09PXQ31mEC-A@mail.gmail.com> <20140802183259.GL50495@funkthat.com> <CAFHCsPW-ZD9%2BfPy_y1N5LmT%2BoCoSxoznxJNr=3UvDwEtRrdi6A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Svatopluk Kraus wrote this message on Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 21:27 +0200: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: > > > Svatopluk Kraus wrote this message on Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 15:20 +0200: > > > Well, I did not look at network stack for long time, so the following > > > things could be obsolete now, but at least: > > > > > > (1) There is some room left in mbuf header on its allocation, so > > protocols > > > (link) headers can be added in the front of data without need of > > > reallocation or data copying. The size of the room is evaluated from all > > > domains at boot time. > > > > > > (2) All network address masks are shared among domains and protocols in > > > mask radix tree. The tree is created with particular key size, which is > > > again evaluated from all domains as maximal size of all known addresses. > > > > > > So, if new domain added after these evaluations does not break both them > > > and some other things, there is no problem. Otherwise, some warnings are > > > always nice if things go bad. > > > > But would anyone who sees these issues know that this is the problem? > > And what would they do, report the problem? We'd say, yeh, we know, > > but do you hit this every day? Nope, ok, we won't fix it... > > > > > Maybe some function which examine new domain and say there is no risk to > > > add it would be nice. > > > > I agree... These things should have been done in the first place, but > > clearly this warning wasn't enough to cause anyone to fix it.. :) > > You are right, but the warning is remainder that there is something > unresolved. Remove the warning and forget, imho, it's not well. Sorry, nine years[1] of the warning existing yet no fix clearly demonstrates that it's already been forgoten, otherwise it would have been fixed by now.. Also, a bug report or XXX comment is enough IMO, and will probably receive the same amount of attention over the next nine years... [1] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/138239 -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140802200149.GO50495>