Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:22:09 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1-RELEASE TODO Message-ID: <20030601002208.GG503@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20030531142459.A90361@xorpc.icir.org> References: <200305311300.h4VD0GUE084477@fledge.watson.org> <20030531142459.A90361@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:24:59PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:00:16AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | Issue | Status | Responsible | Description | > > |------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------------------| > > | | | | There are reports of | > > | ipfw/ipfw2 | | | alignment problems with | > > | alignment issues | In progress | Luigi Rizzo | ipfw and/or ipfw2 on | > > | on alpha/sparc64 | | | 64-bit platforms | > > | | | | (specifically alpha and | > > | | | | sparc64). | > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > i posted patches and a detailed description for this item > 3 weeks ago to re@ and then the same was forwarded a couple of weeks > ago to the relevant lists (ipfw, sparc64, alpha) and got no > useful feedback (in detail, two message: one 'cannot apply the patch', > the other one 'it dumps core' without further details). A gdb stacktrace is much more than "without further details". It happened inside bcopy. I asumed that the stacktrace including the sourceline calling bcopy would be enough. If you need more then you should say so - I can't guess. > As i do not have access to these platforms, all i can do is provide > code and make sure that it compiles (which i did, using a cross-build), > but for running it (part of the problem involves the kernel) i need > someone with root&console access to test them. > > I would interpret the absence of feedback as a "nobody cares enough" > (which is perfectly fine given that these platforms are a negligible > fraction of the installed base, there are more important issues to > address and these particular ones should have a relatively trivial > fix). It's a chick egg problem - if software regulary fails then less users will use such hardware or at least avoid that kind of software. Don't get me wrong: ipfw is good software which I use daily (on i386) and I'm happy about the recent features you did, but there are two sides of the story. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030601002208.GG503>