Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:14:42 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Future of netnatm: looking for testers Message-ID: <20101215230640.K6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007282337310.14245@fledge.watson.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007282337310.14245@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Robert Watson wrote:
In reply to the original post:
> Dear all:
>
> When the new link layer framework was introduced in 8.0, one of our ATM
> stacks, netnatm, was left behind. As a result, it neither compiles nor runs
> in 8.x and 9.x. This e-mail serves two purposes:
>
> (1) To solicit a volunteer who can work on the netnatm stack in 9.x, with
> potential merge to 8.x, to get it back to functionality before 9.0 ships.
> This is the preferred course of action.
>
> (2) To serve as notice that if we can't find a volunteer to do this, we will
> remove netnatm and associated parts from the tree in 9.0 since they'll have
> gone one major version neither compiling nor running. This is the fallback
> plan.
>
> I'm in no great rush to remove netnatm, having spent quite a bit of time
> making it work in our MPSAFE world order a couple of years ago. However, the
> code is bitrotting and requires urgent attention if it's going to work again
> easily (the stack is changing around it, and because netnatm doesn't build,
> it will get only cursory and likely incorrect updates). I'm happy to help
> funnel changes into the tree from non-committers, as well as answer questions
> about the network stack, but I have no hardware facilities for debugging or
> testing netnatm changes myself, nor, unfortunately, the time to work on the
> code.
>
> In order to provide further motivation for potentially interested parties,
> here's the proposed six-month removal schedule:
>
> 28 July 2010 - Notice of proposed removal
> 28 October 2010 - Transmit of notice of proposed removal
> 28 January 2011 - Proposed removal date
>
> This schedule may be updated as the 9.0 release schedule becomes more clear,
> or if there are obvious signs of improvement and just a couple more months
> would get it fixed :-). And, if worst comes to worst and we can't find a
> volunteer, the code will live on in the source repository history if there's
> a desire to rejuvenate it in the future.
I would request two things:
1) the extra couple of months; this will not prevent the evitable removal
yet only defer it.
2) If anyone of you is using (or want to be able to (continue to) use) NATM
or can test things, I re-enabled it with most of the code in HEAD and
the patch is available for 8,x as well but need to work with somoene
to make sure it'll really work. I am willing to spend more time on it
if you send me an email.
Best Regards,
Bjoern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Author: bz
> Date: Wed Dec 15 22:58:45 2010
> New Revision: 216466
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216466
>
> Log:
> Bring back (most of) NATM to avoid further bitrot after r186119.
> Keep three lines disabled which I am unsure if they had been used at all.
> This will allow us to seek testers and possibly bring it all back.
If you have the ability to test (on 8.x or HEAD) or are using NATM,
please get in contact with me.
> Discussed with: rwatson
> MFC after: 7 weeks
>
> Modified:
> head/sys/conf/NOTES
> head/sys/netinet/if_atm.c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life.
<ks> Going to jail sucks -- <bz> All my daemons like it!
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101215230640.K6126>