Re: git: 0ec13430c583 - main - sys/netinet6: Fix ABI breakage introduced with RFC 7217 support

On 9/23/25 17:27, Jonathan T. Looney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 11:44 AM Guido Falsi <madpilot@freebsd.org 
> <mailto:madpilot@freebsd.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 9/22/25 17:37, Jonathan T. Looney wrote:
>      > This seems like it is probably a low-frequency event. If so, why
>     is a
>      > counter a better choice for this than an atomic?
>      >
> 
>     I used counters because they were already being used in the netinet6
>     code, and are a good match for the use.
> 
> 
> What makes them a good match for the use? Counters are generally best 
> for write-often, read-rarely (by comparison) things, like statistics, 
> where we want to avoid contention in a often-used critical path. For 
> low-frequency events, the expense of keeping the counters (memory usage 
> multiplied by the number of cores; more difficult debugging; etc.) may 
> outweigh the benefits.
> 

Maybe I explained myself poorly, I meant to say the structure already 
uses counters and they work.

It did not occur to me to use something different, but I see no problem 
using a different tool, as long as it works and does not make the logic 
more complex.

-- 
Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>