Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, 02:06-0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 12:15:21PM +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > ... > > > > Consider this a FYI. It is very much a WIP at the moment. I want > > > > to get this into the tree in before 5.3 code freeze. > > > > > > In fact, our real world tests shown the current -CURRENT comparing to > > > RELENG_5_2 is in a very bad shape. Is it really worth to commit that > > > mostly cleanup code before say 6-CURRENT with a chance to > > > > of course it is! i also do not follow the reasoning -- given that it is > > cleaning up code, it is only welcome at any stage except perhaps > > in code freeze. > > My concern is bugs. Especially in cleanup code, especially in > ip_pcbopt and ip_reass. I do not modify ip_pcbopt in any way. All the IP Options stuff is simply a 1:1 code move to get them all in one single place. For ip_reass() I've taken a very conservative approach and just moved the external code into the function itself. In terms of coding style it looks a bit ugly but is a pure 1:1 adaption of the existing code. Thus I'm sure that I haven't changed the behaviour of the ip reassembly code in any way (except one). I agree that a rewrite of ip_reass() is a very delicate thing because of possible bugs, but that is not what I have done. -- AndreReceived on Tue Jun 22 2004 - 09:45:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:58 UTC