Step 1.5 needs review

[Julian Elischer]

Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:38:54AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> Brooks Davis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 07:03:30PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> in case you are interested or have volunteered before to review Step 1.5
>>>> as described on   http://wiki.freebsd.org/Image/Notes200808DevSummit
>>>> there are few things to do:
>>>>
>>>> - review the diff (Julian posted an initial one).
>>>> - make sure all (relevant) sysctl were caught.
>>>> - make sure the INIT_VNET_* macro is there whereever it is needed.
>>>> - do builds according to "HOWTO verify that the pure style changes are
>>>>   all right" on the above mentioned page and verify that it is all
>>>>   style changes. In case there are others we shoudl decide to either
>>>>   commit them either upfront or afterwards if possible.
>>>> - the 'include headers' one way or the other (as we have discussed at
>>>>   the devsummit and that Julian has told me again) needs resolving.
>>>>   As this has bikeshed potential, I'd prefer that the 'singed up'
>>>>   reviewers decide that.
>>>> - possibly more...
>>>>
>>>> The plan would be to have a final patch by Monday morning UTC to be
>>>> comitted by a volunteer.
>>> I've gone over the patch and fixed some white space issues.  I've also
>>> found some things I'm not sure what to do with.  Comments:
>>>
>>> - GENERIC_NODEBUG should not be committed
>>> - VNET_ITERLOOP_BEGIN/END is evil.  It would be really nice to find a
>>>   way to do this that preserves {} pairs and isn't too magic.
>> The requirement is to take soem code that doesn something once.
>> and do it once for each vimage. There are of course many ways to do this..
>>
>> Once we have the code in, I think we should expand this out
>> and correctly indent the code, but for reasons of "minimum diff size"
>> teh current way seems ok to me though it doens't look pretty..
>>
>> I suggest that we eventually replace:
>>
>> 	VNET_ITERLOOP_BEGIN
>> 	stuff
>> 	VNET_ITERLOOP_END
>>
>>
>> with (eventually)
>>
>> 	FOREACH_VNET(vnet) {
>> 		stuff
>> 	}
>>
>> but that would require that the entire contents of "stuff"
>> would appear in the diff.
> 
> Thinking about it more, at a minimum, I think we should do:
> 	VNET_ITERLOOP_BEGIN
> 		stuff
> 	VNET_ITERLOOP_END

when? (i.e. at which stage)?


and doing FOREACH_VNET() {}
will allow brace matching...

> 
>>> - sys/kern/tty.c:
>>>   - There's some #if 0 code that presumably should stay in the vimage
>>>     branch for now and be fixed before the final commit.
>>>   - TIOCDRAIN is being removed.  Is this a merge issue or something
>>>     else?
>>
>> not sure myself.. I've been only following the tty mashup from a distance.
>>
>>> - sys/net/if.h:
>>>   - shouldn't net/vnet.h be included in if_var.h instead?  *_var.h is
>>>     supposed to be the internals and I think this qualifies.  If so,
>>>     there will be a number of files that added if.h includes that
>>>     should add if_var.h includes instead.
>> I actually looked around to find a good place to icnlude vnet.h from
>> and decided on if.h because it seemt o be included almist everywhere
>> that vnet.h needed to be included, but I'm not religious on it.
>>
>> teh original code actually includes vnet.h directly in about 50 source 
>> files.
>>
>> my attempt to include it from if.h cut that down to 3.
>>
>> I'm not sure I want to actually include the contents directly into
>> if.h  or any other place.. I think keeping a separate vnet.h and
>> vinet.h seems ok to me.
> 
> The #ifdef _KERNEL is a strong hint that it belongs in if_var.h if it's
> going to be included in another header (IMO, the vnet/vinet.h files
> aren't a good idea in the long term).
> 
> -- Brooks