CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck?

[Kevin Oberman]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ian Lepore
<freebsd at damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 09:58 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 17 August 2012 07:56, Ian Lepore <freebsd at damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>
>> > That result actually matches my expectation... it fixed only a part of
>> > your problem.  I suspected (without very good evidence) that you may
>> > have two unrelated problems; hopefully now that we've eliminated one the
>> > other will be easier to find.
>> >
>> > I've submitted a PR with that patch attached, since it has now been
>> > shown to fix a problem on two different sets of (similar) hardware:
>> >
>> >   http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170705
>>
>> Hm, who's a good person to review this stuff? Maybe bde?
>>
>
> No!  Not bde!  He'll notice that I violated style(9) by accidentally
> leaving an extra blank line between a comment block and the function
> definition.  :)  (There are probably more violations than that -- I did
> this when I was first trying to come to grips with the differences
> between style(9) and the almost-style(9) standards we use at work.)
>
> When I first proposed the changes, jhb remarked that they sounded good,
> but as far as I know, nobody reviewed the actual diff when I posted it.
> It looks like bde and phk were the primary maintainers back when this
> code was being more actively worked on.

Why not bde? Everyone needs to learn what the term "bruceification" means.

Believe me, there IS good reason for programming style and almost
everyone with a commit bit gets close. bde will provide a reminder of
any of those things you forgot were in style(9). This is something we
should appreciate, even if it does sting a bit.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6558 at gmail.com