Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:39:18 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: itojun@iijlab.net, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPV6/KAME/protosw integration cleanup Message-ID: <3B777616.F70D384E@elischer.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010812172731.38785C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> It strikes me that, although some code cleanup may be called for, a week
> is too agressive a deadline for many of them to be pushed through,
> especially in light of the code maintenance issue on the KAME side.
I sugggest no changes in 4.x
They have had over a year for cleaning it up.. how much time do they need
considering I've given them patches for most of it..
> I
> suggest that we look at a more gradual approach, as there's no rush right
> now for 5.0-RELEASE, and attempt to address technical issues one at a time
> (rather than a mega-patch). This would allow changes to be integrated as
> necessary into the KAME tree one-by-one, allow synchronization with code
> on other platforms, and allow the resolution of any technical problems to
> be done in a manner that all consumers of the KAME code can accept.
I've asked them to start working on it.. If they don't even start then
I'll act but if they start cleaning up the code (90% of the WARNING messages
we see in a kernel compile come from potential bugs introduced with KAME) I'm
happy to let them do it at their own pace.. as long as there IS a pace.
>
> Increasing the differences between the FreeBSD and KAME trees will only
> serve to exacerbatese these difficilties, especially in light of other
> changes coming in on the FreeBSD side (such as fine-grained locking). We
> benefit a great deal from the work performed by the KAME team, and I think
> I speak for everyone on the FreeBSD side when I say that we certainly wish
> to continue to be able to take advantage of the KAME IP stack work :-).
Sure, but we need to make sure that it sticks to quality goals.
How for example can you audit for correct function passing if they start
using random varargs in protocol modules? what if someone wants to
use a differnt combination of modules to those envisionned by the
writers?
>
> Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
> robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > Here is the patch I will consider committing in a week (unless I see these
> > issues
> > being handled elsewhere)
> >
> > --
> > +------------------------------------+ ______ _ __
> > | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in
> > | / \ julian@elischer.org +------>x USA \ a very strange
> > | ( OZ ) \___ ___ | country !
> > +- X_.---._/ presently in San Francisco \_/ \\
> > v
--
+------------------------------------+ ______ _ __
| __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in
| / \ julian@elischer.org +------>x USA \ a very strange
| ( OZ ) \___ ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/ presently in San Francisco \_/ \\
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B777616.F70D384E>