From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 18 18:30:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4123916A518; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:30:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DFC43D45; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:30:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.2.73] (cpe.125.wat.v126.packetworks.net [64.235.97.125] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7IIUTF3065265; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:30:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <41239F8D.4000808@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:27:25 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040801 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Polstra References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=3.8 tests=RISK_FREE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: re@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: netgraph only on i386/ia64 - why ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:30:04 -0000 John Polstra wrote: > On 18-Aug-2004 Julian Elischer wrote: > >>John Polstra wrote: >> >>>There is one problem with netgraph on 64-bit platforms. The ng_msghdr >>>struct is 52 bytes / 4-byte aligned (see ng_message.h). That means >>>the message payload is not well-aligned for 64-bit platforms. It >>>would be nice to fix that (and bump NG_VERSION, of course). Nobody >>>ever guaranteed that the message payload would be aligned, but it >>>makes things a lot more convenient. >> >>if we do this we should do it now so that we have a consistent ABI from 5.3 on.. >> >>scott (et al), should we pad an extra 4 bytes in this now? >>it's low/no risk, but better now than after 5.3 has been released.. > > > I'd really like to see this change happen. Julian, would it require > bumping just NG_VERSION, or should NG_ABI_VERSION change too? > > John The first step here is to commit to HEAD. Once the details are worked out, we'll likely approve it for RELENG_5. Scott