On 11/30/11 00:05, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
> On 11/28/11 14:59, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Lawrence Stewart wrote:
>>> On 11/23/11 17:42, Julien Ridoux wrote:
>>>> What is your favourite option?
>>> FreeBSD parlance is to ask what colour you would like to paint the
>>> bikeshed ;)
>>> As I've never experienced the pain John refers to, I'll defer to the
>>> wisdom of others on whether the proposed patch will create pain down
>>> the road. I think it's ok, but if consensus is 8bytes per packet isn't
>>> going to break the bank, I guess we just go for it - but I guess I am
>>> cautious about this route as we can push a lot of packets per second
>>> through the stack.
>> Since other people seem to be keeping quiet, I'll add that I'm in favor
>> of just always adding the 8 bytes per packet.
> Julien and I discussed this at length today, and agree that for head,
> we'll add the new bh_ffcounter member to the BPF header unconditionally.
> Thanks to you and John for the input.
> I'm going to revert r227778 in order to start form a clean slate, and
> add two separate patches. One will reintegrate FFCLOCK support with BPF
> without breaking the ABI. A follow up patch will bump the ffclock
> version and add the bh_ffcounter to the bpf header (after the timestamp
> member). Then a final patch will bump __FreeBSD_version and add a note
> to UPDATING about recompiling to get kernel/world in sync, which should
> seal the deal.
Here's the first of the patches:
Julien, it's basically what you sent me today, but is against vanilla
bpf.c/bpf.h (I decided at the last minute that reverting r227778 first
was going to be cleaner and easier to follow). Relative to what you
sent, it also has some tweaks to reduce the diff size, remove the
unnecessary uses of BPF_T_FLAG()/BPF_T_FORMAT() and fix the "(u_char
If I don't hear any objections, I'll commit it tomorrow.