From owner-cvs-all Fri Jan 11 11:29:13 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from kayak.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212DC37B405; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:28:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by kayak.xcllnt.net (8.11.6/8.11.4) id g0BJSp902174; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:28:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:28:51 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_ioctl.c Message-ID: <20020111112851.A2103@kayak.xcllnt.net> References: <200201100536.g0A5aao01807@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020110191209.A318@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20020110203918.A440@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar writes: > > This reintroduces the bugs reported by our users. How should those be > > fixed then? > > Please provide references to those bugs. http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=673075+675491+/usr/local/www/db/text/2001/freebsd-stable/20011202.freebsd-stable http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=238427+0+current/freebsd-stable > > In the original (ie your) implementation translation was dependent > > on the positional index (ie if_index) and as such could change more > > often than is the case now. Especially since non-ethernet interfaces > > could cause the translation of ethernet interfaces to change. > > No. Once an interface has been assigned an if_index, it keeps that > index until it is detached. Yes, you're right. > > Can you explain why the positional independence of eth interfaces is > > bad in your opinion? > > It's not, but this is not the correct way to implement it. This implementation is at least achieving it and as such is correct. We don't doubt that it can be improved upon. > > This is a side issue. If the commits are reverted linprocfs works > > again. If the commits stay, then obviosly we think that it's correct > > and know that we need to fix linprocfs. > > Wrong. Linprocfs doesn't need fixing. Please back out your incorrect, > poorly though-out and poorly tested commits, or I will. It looks like you backed out reason already. Clearly there's no point in talking it over first. Whatever you want, Des... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message