From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 19:20:08 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 6859A16A4CE; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:20:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from daintree.corp.yahoo.com (daintree.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.52.172]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521A743D1F; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 19:20:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@yahoo-inc.com) Received: by daintree.corp.yahoo.com (Postfix, from userid 2154) id E8B76881F; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:20:07 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040901193445.GC12483@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20040902.020500.26961549.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040902172345.GB3801@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040902172345.GB3801@odin.ac.hmc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200409021220.07611.peter@wemm.org> cc: scottl@freebsd.org cc: julian@freebsd.FreeBSD.ORG cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: julian@elischer.org 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 19:20:08 -0000 On Thursday 02 September 2004 10:23 am, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:05:00AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <20040902000637.GA4120@odin.ac.hmc.edu> > > > > Brooks Davis writes: > > : - 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. > > > > There have long been plans to remove support to upgrade to 6.0 from > > 4.x, and I plan on moving forward with those plans after the 5.3 > > branch. There are a large number of hacks in place to allow > > upgrading all the way back to the 4.0 branch point, and these hacks > > have been the source of a lot of frustration and gnashing of teeth > > over the years. By right of conquest (eg writing the legacy > > library and working with both sides of this issue for litterally > > years), and by general consensus of the folks that do the grunt > > work to make it possible to upgrade, I think that desupporting > > upgrade to 6.0 from anything less than 5.2 (or maybe 5.1 for a > > time) is a reasonable path to follow. Given that the rest of the > > build system support for upgrades will be limited, I'm not sure the > > benefit of supporting the upgrade from 4.11 to 6. We never really > > supported upgrading from 3.5.1 to 5.0-Release, for example. > > Note that a change of the size of struct if_data doesn't totally > break ugprades from old versions, it just requires a bit of > pre-planning if your upgrade process requires ifconfig or if you need > the ability to roll back. Yes, thanks for the perspective reminder. As you say, this is a boot issue, not a build issue. We normally "just deal with it" for this sort of thing (ps, netstat, etc blowing up). But ifconfig is a bit more sensitive than ps. ifconfig can easily stop your system booting while ps is just cosmetic. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5