From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 21 20:02:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1A5106566C for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:02:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305EE8FC0C for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dadr6 with SMTP id r6so134673dad.13 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:02:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=1YjeEkujr25zpRWHD0kXYSeGn3peUJEtwjhJOwAl08s=; b=Y3OX88AmnN8NX85Flsa3yjM8CgSr9ep6FlCqRl0Uyka4cbeCP5L64b0qJaIEIo9Rio YTIn3PA+LNLGmGFHhKxHkS63/mrpx8HRDOciHEJaJupAKhp0eJh4gOxIj02Zc04QCEiU MNb+tGYMYgC4wtLdegUkqjrzlg8e1wJvxctMrjZxdH2NLNT5neQ5pdCE33bJaAZokM/O HkXlhf/7ZtwNct6ymHg9gq+zlVG/WHi2LMkO7pBKMsQrvZF3o20HdC/ApPp238CYPvxU ON9uLByrZ2l6mMNVS18mu7Oo+9oBIcu9WiwY/Rv9S/DYkbGyez2Z5OIWc3BDJlWnNRMX jgQw== Received: by 10.66.73.69 with SMTP id j5mr40781217pav.8.1345579341524; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fusionlt2834a.int.fusionio.com ([216.51.42.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id st6sm2049038pbc.58.2012.08.21.13.02.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <1345570590.27688.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:02:18 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7EFE4E90-32A6-4A9D-B760-C13629E2D19B@bsdimp.com> References: <20120821095527.GA33206@hell.ukr.net> <67977762.20120821154035@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1959717636.20120821155308@serebryakov.spb.ru> <201208210934.31484.jhb@freebsd.org> <1049151425.20120821190433@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345562163.27688.347.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <709115163.20120821192652@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345564507.27688.354.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1409150425.20120821210152@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345570590.27688.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> To: Ian Lepore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDBeizIBe000r69xO0B5LTpvRBIO3gI8mfl01NMnyFoXyuU9lxxAeq5u2S+8jYX4dVJUKB Cc: lev@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: r239356: does it mean, that synchronous dhcp and dhcplcinet with disabled devd gone? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:02:22 -0000 On Aug 21, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 21:01 +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> IL> The important point is that if you unplug the cable then plug it = into a >> IL> different network, now the right thing will happen -- you will = acquire >> IL> an address on the new network. That's the reason that this = change is an >> IL> important bugfix for a long standing (many many years) bug in = freebsd's >> IL> dhclient. >> No, I'll be without dhclient at all, if I don't use devd :(. And >> absence of devd is completely legal, and should be supported. It is >> perfectly valid and sensible setup for small devices (think: >> MIPS-based routers, which are started to be supported now), where = devd >> could be very costly in both terms of flash size (it is C++ >> application and need C++ runtime!) and memory (only devd event on >> such devices are this cable plugging/unplugging -- so using devd >> doesn't add any value for such setups). >>=20 >=20 > I think it's funny how people have this knee-jerk reaction against C++ > apps. The devd executable is not exactly an example of bloatware: = 374k > statically linked (so it already includes this "C++ runtime" that you > think is large). We routinely deploy embedded systems that use apps > written exclusively in C++, on systems that only have 32 or 64mb of = ram. > We've been doing so since the days when the biggest compact flash card > you could buy was 64mb. C++ isn't the problem. Devd's size wouldn't be any smaller if I'd = written it in pure C. People have sent me patches that move it to pure = C over time. Yet, when written in C, the binaries are the same size = (well, within 10k), and the run-time speed and memory consumption are = comparable. Devd was written with the small, embedded system in mind, = and was always considered to be on the path to being mandatory (you are = free to write your own devd-like program, if you like btw). Haven't looked at the dhclient issues surrounding this tread, but C++ = size and bloat of devd is an argument not supported by the objective = facts. Warner