Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 06:34:55 +0000 From: Anuranjan Shukla <anshukla@juniper.net> To: "mike@karels.net" <mike@karels.net>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Arch" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Roadmap for ifnet(9) for FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <CFAC1D4D.16B51%anshukla@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <201405290537.s4T5b16Z033344@mail.karels.net> References: <20140529040425.GT50679@glebius.int.ru> <201405290537.s4T5b16Z033344@mail.karels.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Rui=B9s question, if I understand it right, yes we=B9ll work on the patc= h based on comments and feedback. As is obvious, Juniper=B9s network stack ha= s its own set of the drvapi functions that do very different things in some cases. One intent in the submission is to agree upon the API itself as a first step, because further along we are in our production/shipping cycles with this change the harder it=B9ll be to pull off fundamental changes ther= e. On 5/28/14, 10:37 PM, "Mike Karels" <mike@karels.net> wrote: >Marcel and others, is there more to the roadmap than making the ifnet >easier >to change? Could you outline a bit more of the roadmap? I know that >Juniper >has more levels in the hierarchy of interface data structures. What are >you >proposing that we change after this step? > >I'll also repeat the general part of Rui's question: > >R> This is indeed needed, but it would be nice to understand what would >happen if the community has comments about your patch. Will Juniper be >able to integrate back those comments? > > Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CFAC1D4D.16B51%anshukla>