From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 05:24:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516A316A4CE for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:24:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD69343D5C for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:24:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.0.201] ([192.168.0.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i825NtSR079817; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:23:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4136ADD7.6060207@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:21:27 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040831 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brooks Davis References: <20040901193445.GC12483@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41364574.8070201@elischer.org> <20040902051415.GA23926@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040902051415.GA23926@odin.ac.hmc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Garance A Drosihn cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: if_data size issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:24:15 -0000 Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:49:45PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >>In a later message, Brooks Davis wrote: >> >>>Given the pain this change is causing and the limited impact of >>>reducing the precision of ifi_epoch, I propose the following: >>> >>>- Back out the ifi_epoch addition. >>>- MT5 and MT4 Peter's size change. >>>- Turn ifi_unused into ifi_epoch. >> >>Given the time-constraints in that we want a solution "right now", >>these seem like good ideas. > > > I've done the backout and will submit Peter's change for MT5 on the 4th. > I'll do the ifi_unused => ifi_epoch change soon, but I need to verify my > theory that I can use a time_t without changing the struct size. > > >>>- After 5.3 is released, declare that upgrades to 6.0 from releases >>> other then 4.x (x>=11) and 5.y (y>=3) require special handling >>> and allow if_data to grow as demand requires. >>>- If additional precision is deemed necessary at some future date, >>> add a second ifi_epoch_tv. >> >>We do not have to come to an agreement on these steps until we are >>ready to make additional changes to the structure. Something along >>these lines seems reasonable to me, but I don't think that we have >>to declare any specific timetables right now. > > > Agreed. I think it would be useful to declare upfront that should a > change be made, we are willing to jetison full, offical support for > upgrades to 6.0 from 5.x (x<3), but that's a minor detail. > > -- Brooks > Given that we aren't declaring 5-STABLE until 5.3, this is probably a reasonable position to take. Those early adopters of 5.0-5.2.1 should (theorectically) know what they are getting into. Scott