Re: Take 2: new IP Checksum Code from DragonFlyBSD

On Thu, 2006-May-25 12:40:00 +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote:                    
>patch doesn't touch any arch !i386 and derivates, so I don't see any reason  
>why it shouldn't be included.                                                

On Fri, 2006-May-26 13:30:17 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>The current code is a maze of assembly and macros, the new one is
>straight forward C and a little bit of assembly. And the new one is
>also known to work in DragonFlyBSD. Do you expect *this* code to act
>differently between FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD?

I don't expect the code itself to act differently.  But I don't know
if FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD have different expectations of the code -
probably they don't but someone (the proponent of the change) needs to
confirm this.

>What's the technical backing of your preference to stick with the
>current code? How does the technical backing of your preference compare
>to the technical arguments I presented in this thread regarding the
>priority of the arguments?

I was responding to Gordon's comments above.  If the code is better and
there _are_ technical arguments for FreeBSD to use it, then we should.
"I don't see any reason not to use it" is not justification for changing
critical code.

-- 
Peter Jeremy