Luigi Rizzo | 1 Mar 16:30 2009
Picon
Picon

spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

Hi,
I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files
to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like
to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place.
Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?

Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files
related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move them
(perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
to a separate subdirectory ?

(I know the same reasoning would apply to tcp, which has 23 files,
but the issue here is that there is 25 years of userland code expecting
the tcp headers in netinet/ and moving them would be a
nightmare for ports...)

	cheers
	luigi
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"

Sam Leffler | 1 Mar 18:39 2009
Picon

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files
> to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like
> to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place.
> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?
>
> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files
> related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move them
> (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
> to a separate subdirectory ?
>
> (I know the same reasoning would apply to tcp, which has 23 files,
> but the issue here is that there is 25 years of userland code expecting
> the tcp headers in netinet/ and moving them would be a
> nightmare for ports...)
>   
I think sctp belongs in it's own directory.

I'd vote for just ipfw; the "2" was an artifact of previous code.

    Sam

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"

Julian Elischer | 1 Mar 22:26 2009

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files
> to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like
> to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place.
> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?
> 
> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files
> related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move them
> (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
> to a separate subdirectory ?

for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in their own 
subdirectories.

tcp related files are also multiplying, with things like syncookies etc.

> 
> (I know the same reasoning would apply to tcp, which has 23 files,
> but the issue here is that there is 25 years of userland code expecting
> the tcp headers in netinet/ and moving them would be a
> nightmare for ports...)
> 
> 	cheers
> 	luigi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"

(Continue reading)

Rui Paulo | 2 Mar 01:18 2009
Picon

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)


On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote:

> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files
>> to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like
>> to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better  
>> place.
>> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?
>> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files
>> related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move them
>> (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
>> to a separate subdirectory ?
>
> for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in their  
> own subdirectories.

Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's  
doable.

SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a "moving  
nightmare".

I vote for "ipfw" like Sam, BTW.

--
Rui Paulo

(Continue reading)

perryh | 2 Mar 03:22 2009

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller
> >> files to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would
> >> also like to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c)
> >> to a better place.
> >> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?
> >> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36
> >> files related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move
> >> them (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
> >> to a separate subdirectory ?
> >
> > for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in
> > their own subdirectories.
>
> Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's
> doable.
>
> SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a
> "moving nightmare".

Perhaps everything can be moved, if hardlinks or symlinks are
left in sys/netinet for those parts (mostly .h files, presumably)
which have too much legacy to be moved outright.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
(Continue reading)

FreeBSD bugmaster | 2 Mar 12:06 2009
Picon

Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-arch <at> FreeBSD.org

Note: to view an individual PR, use:
  http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number).

The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsolete releases.

S Tracker      Resp.      Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o kern/120749  arch       [request] Suggest upping the default kern.ps_arg_cache

1 problem total.

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"

George V. Neville-Neil | 2 Mar 17:49 2009

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

At Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:22:02 -0800,
perryh <at> pluto.rain.com wrote:
> 
> Rui Paulo <rpaulo <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller
> > >> files to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would
> > >> also like to move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c)
> > >> to a better place.
> > >> Any objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ?
> > >> Also, I can't help noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36
> > >> files related to sctp -- wouldn't it be the case to move
> > >> them (perhaps with the exception of the userland headers)
> > >> to a separate subdirectory ?
> > >
> > > for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in
> > > their own subdirectories.
> >
> > Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's
> > doable.
> >
> > SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a
> > "moving nightmare".
> 
> Perhaps everything can be moved, if hardlinks or symlinks are
> left in sys/netinet for those parts (mostly .h files, presumably)
> which have too much legacy to be moved outright.

(Continue reading)

Robert Watson | 2 Mar 19:30 2009
Picon

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)


On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Rui Paulo wrote:

> On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:26, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> Hi, I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files 
>>> to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like to move 
>>> the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place. Any 
>>> objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? Also, I can't help 
>>> noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files related to sctp -- wouldn't 
>>> it be the case to move them (perhaps with the exception of the userland 
>>> headers) to a separate subdirectory ?
>> 
>> for that matter it would be nice to put ALL teh protocols in their own 
>> subdirectories.
>
> Yes, that would be the perfect scenario, but I don't think that's doable.
>
> SCTP can be moved because it hasn't matured enough to cause a "moving 
> nightmare".
>
> I vote for "ipfw" like Sam, BTW.

I think massively rearranging things doesn't by us much in terms of beauty, 
but does give us a lot in terms of hassle, given current assumptions of 
alignment between the layout of /usr/include and the layout of /usr/src/sys. 
We'd need to introduce new explicit mappings to install include files in their 
old locations (which are required by applications), etc.  For a change with 
such a minor benefit, the hassle will be huge.  I'm fine with renaming the 
(Continue reading)

Luigi Rizzo | 2 Mar 20:01 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp)

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:30:27PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
..
> >>Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>Hi, I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files 
> >>>to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like to 
> >>>move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place. Any 
> >>>objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? Also, I can't help 
> >>>noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files related to sctp -- wouldn't 
> >>>it be the case to move them (perhaps with the exception of the userland 
> >>>headers) to a separate subdirectory ?
...
> I think massively rearranging things doesn't by us much in terms of beauty, 
> but does give us a lot in terms of hassle, given current assumptions of 
> alignment between the layout of /usr/include and the layout of 
> /usr/src/sys. We'd need to introduce new explicit mappings to install 
> include files in their old locations (which are required by applications), 
> etc.  For a change with such a minor benefit, the hassle will be huge.  I'm 
> fine with renaming the ipfw .c files and leaving in netinet, but let's not 
> get carried away.

I suspect that the mention of symlinks (which is not mine and absolutely
not what I want to do) triggered some alarms :)

I have very clear the potential nightmare with careless moving
of files, so I tried to make it clear that public headers are excluded:
as you see i wrote "ip_fw*c" and "exception of the userland headers".

To further clarify, my plan is the following:

- leave ip_fw.h and ip_dummynet.h in /sys/netinet in case
(Continue reading)

Xin LI | 4 Mar 00:33 2009
Picon

SCCS IDs in old code


Hi,

I'd like to know if there would be any objections if things like:

static char sccsid[] = " <at> (#)rec_utils.c 8.6 (Berkeley) 7/16/94"

Be moved into the comment right after the copyright header?  Personally
I don't see much point keeping 'em just in order to make -DLIBC_SCCS
work, since these code changes from time to time and the version number
and dates are no longer relevant, perhaps, they should be better just
kept in the comment for reference from historical code.

Comments?

Cheers,
--
Xin LI <delphij <at> delphij.net>	http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!

Gmane