MQ Patch.

[Luigi Rizzo]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Andre Oppermann <andre at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 29.10.2013 21:20, Randall Stewart wrote:
>
>> So, to conclude: i fully support any plan to design something that lets us
>>> implement scheduling (and qos, if you want to call it this way)
>>> in a reasonable way, but what is in your patch now does not really
>>> seem to improve the current situation in any way.
>>>
>>
>> Its a step towards fixing that I am allowed to give. I can see
>> why Company's get frustrated with trying to give anything to the project.
>>
>
> Well, that we have a problem in that area is known and acknowledged and
> there is active work in this area going on.
>
> It would be very problematic if every vendor were just to through some
> stuff over the fence and have it integrated as is.  It would quickly
> become very messy.  In many specific purpose geared products a number
> of shortcuts can be taken that may not be appropriate for a general
> purpose OS that does more than routing.
>

that is exactly the issue.
It is not just FreeBSD that has strict policies on what gets accepted.

Several times (though mostly in the past) I myself have
been suggested to reconsider submissions that were too intrusive
or lacking from an architectural point of view. And as much i
could have been annoyed, i have to recognise that the criticism
was legitimate and eventually led to better implementations.

Of course one has much more freedom when playing with a standalone component
(say netmap, or a device driver, or SCTP...)
which does not interfere with the rest of the kernel,
and possibly even fills a hole in the OS.
But this is not one of those cases.

cheers
luigi