svn commit: r217018 - stable/8/sys/netinet

[George Neville-Neil]

On Jan 7, 2011, at 08:04 , John Baldwin wrote:

> On Friday, January 07, 2011 4:36:38 am Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi George,
>>> 
>>> On 01/06/11 05:52, George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
>>>> Author: gnn
>>>> Date: Wed Jan  5 18:52:30 2011
>>>> New Revision: 217018
>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/217018
>>>> 
>>>> Log:
>>>>  Fix binary compatability for netstats across the -x/-T changes
>>>>  that have been previously MFC'd.
>>>> 
>>>>  Reviewed by:	rwatson, bz
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>>  stable/8/sys/netinet/tcp_var.h
>>>> 
>> ...
>>> 
>>> On my stable/8 machine after updating world but not kernel I see "struct
>>> xtcpcb size mismatch" messages which indicates the ABI has been futzed 
> with.
>> 
>> Be sure that it's not local changes.
>> 
>>> Looking at the above diff I think this commit does indeed change the ABI
>>> and therefore needs to be tweaked in order to maintain our current ABI
>>> preservation policy for stable branches (unless I'm missing something?).
>>> If the change to the ABI is intentional, a note in UPDATING would
>>> probably be warranted.
>> 
>> I think you are missing that that was the "repair" commit.  Are you
>> sure you didn't pickup the wrong versions?  There was about a 1 day
>> timeframe, where things were hosed but I believe George fixed them
>> all.
>> 
>> Hmm looking at the diff committed more closely I see that the two
>> uint64_t are not were they should be.  Are you by any chance on i386
>> or another 32bit platform?
>> 
>> 	uint64_t	t_sndrexmitpack;/* retransmit packets sent */
>> 	uint64_t	t_rcvoopack;	/* out-of-order packets received */
>> should move  after t_pspare2[6] and the patch I had seen had that.
>> 
>> Maybe we should even move them after _pad[] to keep the spares
>> together.
>> 
>> Can you test this one?
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20110107-01-restore-xtcpcb-ABI.diff
> 
> I think something like this is appropriate even regardless as it is cleaner to 
> use the pad[] spots where they were originally.

Yeah, that patch is the right way to go.

Best,
George