Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:02:18 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: r239356: does it mean, that synchronous dhcp and dhcplcinet with disabled devd gone? Message-ID: <7EFE4E90-32A6-4A9D-B760-C13629E2D19B@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <1345570590.27688.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <20120821095527.GA33206@hell.ukr.net> <67977762.20120821154035@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1959717636.20120821155308@serebryakov.spb.ru> <201208210934.31484.jhb@freebsd.org> <1049151425.20120821190433@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345562163.27688.347.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <709115163.20120821192652@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345564507.27688.354.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1409150425.20120821210152@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345570590.27688.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 21:01 +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> IL> The important point is that if you unplug the cable then plug it = into a >> IL> different network, now the right thing will happen -- you will = acquire >> IL> an address on the new network. That's the reason that this = change is an >> IL> important bugfix for a long standing (many many years) bug in = freebsd's >> IL> dhclient. >> No, I'll be without dhclient at all, if I don't use devd :(. And >> absence of devd is completely legal, and should be supported. It is >> perfectly valid and sensible setup for small devices (think: >> MIPS-based routers, which are started to be supported now), where = devd >> could be very costly in both terms of flash size (it is C++ >> application and need C++ runtime!) and memory (only devd event on >> such devices are this cable plugging/unplugging -- so using devd >> doesn't add any value for such setups). >>=20 >=20 > I think it's funny how people have this knee-jerk reaction against C++ > apps. The devd executable is not exactly an example of bloatware: = 374k > statically linked (so it already includes this "C++ runtime" that you > think is large). We routinely deploy embedded systems that use apps > written exclusively in C++, on systems that only have 32 or 64mb of = ram. > We've been doing so since the days when the biggest compact flash card > you could buy was 64mb. C++ isn't the problem. Devd's size wouldn't be any smaller if I'd = written it in pure C. People have sent me patches that move it to pure = C over time. Yet, when written in C, the binaries are the same size = (well, within 10k), and the run-time speed and memory consumption are = comparable. Devd was written with the small, embedded system in mind, = and was always considered to be on the path to being mandatory (you are = free to write your own devd-like program, if you like btw). Haven't looked at the dhclient issues surrounding this tread, but C++ = size and bloat of devd is an argument not supported by the objective = facts. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7EFE4E90-32A6-4A9D-B760-C13629E2D19B>