Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:01:57 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spliting kernel ipfw source ? (also involves sctp) Message-ID: <20090302190157.GA33704@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903021827400.11098@fledge.watson.org> References: <20090301153010.GA58942@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <49AAFD92.105@elischer.org> <8EBEEE24-6473-411D-AE3F-C4D1D3897E51@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903021827400.11098@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:30:27PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: .. > >>Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >>>Hi, I am planning to split netinet/ip_fw2.c in a number of smaller files > >>>to make it more manageable, and while i do this I would also like to > >>>move the files related to ipfw2 (namely ip_fw*c) to a better place. Any > >>>objection to moving them to sys/netinet/ipfw2 ? Also, I can't help > >>>noticing that sys/netinet/ contains 36 files related to sctp -- wouldn't > >>>it be the case to move them (perhaps with the exception of the userland > >>>headers) to a separate subdirectory ? ... > I think massively rearranging things doesn't by us much in terms of beauty, > but does give us a lot in terms of hassle, given current assumptions of > alignment between the layout of /usr/include and the layout of > /usr/src/sys. We'd need to introduce new explicit mappings to install > include files in their old locations (which are required by applications), > etc. For a change with such a minor benefit, the hassle will be huge. I'm > fine with renaming the ipfw .c files and leaving in netinet, but let's not > get carried away. I suspect that the mention of symlinks (which is not mine and absolutely not what I want to do) triggered some alarms :) I have very clear the potential nightmare with careless moving of files, so I tried to make it clear that public headers are excluded: as you see i wrote "ip_fw*c" and "exception of the userland headers". To further clarify, my plan is the following: - leave ip_fw.h and ip_dummynet.h in /sys/netinet in case userland code is dependent on their location; - create /sys/netinet/ipfw/ to hold the kernel .c files related to ipfw and possibly dummynet (and also their private headers if any); I am not going to touch other people's stuff, though I repeat that sctp would clearly deserve a cleanup -- i doubt userland needs more than one or possibly two headers (one for the basic stuff, one for the fancy and possibly non-portable stuff). Tcp has similar issues especially for recent additions. More than the number of files in /sys/netinet/, i am worried by the amount of private headers that are exposed to userland for no good reason. In fact, some of them are contain: #ifndef _KERNEL #error "no user-serviceable parts inside" #endif Part of this is for historical reasons, but we should try to move to a better structure. Take e.g. tcp_var.h contains the stats (that some userland program may want to have) but also a ton of internal structures (e.g. those for SACK support) that have appeared very recently and have no reason to be there. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090302190157.GA33704>