Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:20:55 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: nash@mcs.net (Alex Nash), eivind@yes.no, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.c src/sys/conf files src/sys/i386/isa if_ed.c if_ep.c if_lnc.c src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c srcOR Message-ID: <4211.906168055@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:24:12 %2B0200." <199809181924.VAA26938@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Size constraints are a sad fact of life and it is difficult to get > things right. The reason i reduced FW_IFNLEN was to fit the struct > ipfw within an mbuf. Changin IFNAMSIZ might break some things i > don't have control upon, and certainly would require recompiling > many more binaries because the dependency between machine limits > is not always explicit or checked in include files (e.g. the MH_LEN > vs IFNAMSIZ). > > i can put FW_IFNLEN back to IFNAMSIZ, but then we lose the > SKIPTO optimization and dummynet because we lose 8 bytes > on each union ip_fw_if (6 bytes for the name, 2 for alignement) and > the additional 16 bytes will bring the struct ipfw to 112 bytes. > > Frankly i don't see an evident advantage, given that my change cannot > break functionality but just binary compatibility for a single program. Just to jump in here - yes, Garrett and I reviewed Luigi's fix so please don't shoot him. He should have noted this in the reviewed by field and for that you can give him a small smack on the hand, but he did at least HAVE it reviewed first. :) And yes, the issues with ipfw should be also noted in the release notes for 2.2. I'll let Luigi do the honors since that all goes hand in hand with being a committer. :-) - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4211.906168055>