svn commit: r227778 - head/sys/net

[Jung-uk Kim]

On Tuesday 29 November 2011 11:13 am, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 11/30/11 00:05, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> > On 11/28/11 14:59, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> >>> On 11/23/11 17:42, Julien Ridoux wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>> What is your favourite option?
> >>>
> >>> FreeBSD parlance is to ask what colour you would like to paint
> >>> the bikeshed ;)
> >>>
> >>> As I've never experienced the pain John refers to, I'll defer
> >>> to the wisdom of others on whether the proposed patch will
> >>> create pain down the road. I think it's ok, but if consensus is
> >>> 8bytes per packet isn't going to break the bank, I guess we
> >>> just go for it - but I guess I am cautious about this route as
> >>> we can push a lot of packets per second through the stack.
> >>
> >> Since other people seem to be keeping quiet, I'll add that I'm
> >> in favor of just always adding the 8 bytes per packet.
> >
> > Julien and I discussed this at length today, and agree that for
> > head, we'll add the new bh_ffcounter member to the BPF header
> > unconditionally.
> >
> > Thanks to you and John for the input.
> >
> > I'm going to revert r227778 in order to start form a clean slate,
> > and add two separate patches. One will reintegrate FFCLOCK
> > support with BPF without breaking the ABI. A follow up patch will
> > bump the ffclock version and add the bh_ffcounter to the bpf
> > header (after the timestamp member). Then a final patch will bump
> > __FreeBSD_version and add a note to UPDATING about recompiling to
> > get kernel/world in sync, which should seal the deal.
>
> Here's the first of the patches:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~lstewart/patches/misc/ffclock_bpf_intact
>abi_10.x.r228130.patch

I only glanced at it but it looks very close to what I wanted to 
suggest.

Thanks!

Jung-uk Kim

> Julien, it's basically what you sent me today, but is against
> vanilla bpf.c/bpf.h (I decided at the last minute that reverting
> r227778 first was going to be cleaner and easier to follow).
> Relative to what you sent, it also has some tweaks to reduce the
> diff size, remove the unnecessary uses of
> BPF_T_FLAG()/BPF_T_FORMAT() and fix the "(u_char *)&mb" buglet.
>
> If I don't hear any objections, I'll commit it tomorrow.
>
> Cheers,
> Lawrence