cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/netinet tcp_ofld.c
tcp_ofld.h tcp_var.h toedev.h src/sys/sys socket.h
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Thu Dec 13 17:30:03 PST 2007
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Scott Long wrote:
>> Let's not discourage that just yet.
> Yes, I would like to discourage disrespectful nit-picking of an important
> piece of work.
I think you're reading too much into Bjoern's comments.
>> I'd like to see all significant changes to TCP discussed on public mailing
>> lists well before they are committed -- at that point, someone saying
>> "actually, I'd name the files a bit differently" is a lot easier to deal
>> with than, say, immediately after they are committed. This needs to be
>> communally owned and maintained code, or in two years time we'll find
>> ourselves in the same position: architectural well-meant changes that are
>> mostly right, but with no review of the details leading to the inevitable
> A failure of what, exactly? Will the names that Kip chose lead to failures
> of TCP sessions? Please enlighten me here.
This thread is a symptom of a specific problem: a failure to seek review for
the work before committing. I'm sure I'm not the only person who saw this
commit and went, "So where was the public request for review for a major
change to our TCP stack?" Requests for more consistent naming, etc, are
coming out now precisely because that review wasn't sort *before* committing.
TOE represents a significant architectural modification, including a new KPI
for device drivers to implement: details matter. Some of these new filenames,
function names, field names, etc, will be embedded in third-party source code
for the forseeable future. No one is saying that Kip's work isn't appreciated
or valued -- rather, that at some point with a piece of code as sensitive and
critical at TCP, it needs to go through careful review and refinement. I sent
Kip a large patch within an hour of his commit to clean up similar sorts of
problems within the file,s making it comply more with the general TCP style
but also to follow conventions for field-naming in data structures, etc, which
he committed along with refinments of his own.
And, FWIW, this doesn't appear to be a bikeshed, because other than you
arguing that this is turning into a bikeshed, no one seems to disagree with
the proposed renaming so far.
Robert N M Watson
University of Cambridge
More information about the cvs-all