if_data size issues
Scott Long
scottl at samsco.org
Wed Sep 1 22:24:15 PDT 2004
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:49:45PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>>In a later message, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>
>>>Given the pain this change is causing and the limited impact of
>>>reducing the precision of ifi_epoch, I propose the following:
>>>
>>>- Back out the ifi_epoch addition.
>>>- MT5 and MT4 Peter's size change.
>>>- Turn ifi_unused into ifi_epoch.
>>
>>Given the time-constraints in that we want a solution "right now",
>>these seem like good ideas.
>
>
> I've done the backout and will submit Peter's change for MT5 on the 4th.
> I'll do the ifi_unused => ifi_epoch change soon, but I need to verify my
> theory that I can use a time_t without changing the struct size.
>
>
>>>- After 5.3 is released, declare that upgrades to 6.0 from releases
>>> other then 4.x (x>=11) and 5.y (y>=3) require special handling
>>> and allow if_data to grow as demand requires.
>>>- If additional precision is deemed necessary at some future date,
>>> add a second ifi_epoch_tv.
>>
>>We do not have to come to an agreement on these steps until we are
>>ready to make additional changes to the structure. Something along
>>these lines seems reasonable to me, but I don't think that we have
>>to declare any specific timetables right now.
>
>
> Agreed. I think it would be useful to declare upfront that should a
> change be made, we are willing to jetison full, offical support for
> upgrades to 6.0 from 5.x (x<3), but that's a minor detail.
>
> -- Brooks
>
Given that we aren't declaring 5-STABLE until 5.3, this is probably a
reasonable position to take. Those early adopters of 5.0-5.2.1 should
(theorectically) know what they are getting into.
Scott
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list