Re: small fix to netatalk

Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> 
> On 3 Aug 2009, at 09:11, Frank Lahm wrote:
> 
>> I just subscribed here so I can't followup neatly which will break
>> threading, sorry for that.
>>
>> If appropiate please also provide any patches upstream. Thanks!
>> Though I'm not sure _what_ you're really patching here, as the patch
>> doesn't match neither upstream head nor branch-2-0 ?
> 
> This is a patch against the kernel netatalk code in FreeBSD, 
> specifically, against address configuration for phase I addresses. 
> Forgive a lack of knowledge of the netatalk project itself, but I had 
> assumed we basically owned the kernel bits and were supposed to make 
> sure they kept working, and you guys owned the userspace bits. If you 
> are maintaining kernel bits, then we should talk about that since I've 
> modified the FreeBSD netatalk kernel code heavily in the last few years 
> during the fine-grained locking work on it. :-)


I did the original port of the netatalk stack to FreeBSD.
At that time the netatalk code was floating around the network
pretty much unmaintained.  Looking at the netatalk site the other
day it looked to me as if someone had picked up the pieces
and restarted the project. I can't remember exactly what OS was
supported before I got to it bit I think it may have been sun-os.
In any case I added code to do all the route munging. Atalk uses 
address ranges rather than address masks but the FreeBSD routing
code only supports binary masks. So I had to add code to express any
particular range as a combination of masks.. (e.g. 0-10 is 0=7 + 8-10)
I think the other BSDs picked netatalk up from FreeBSD.
I don't know hte history of Linux netatalk.


> 
> We should probably talk regardless as one of the big things we appear to 
> be missing for the kernel netatalk code is a decent regression suite -- 
> I have some casual local tests, but over the years we've picked up 
> several reports of regressions (8 appears to have regressed with respect 
> to multiple network interfaces being available, for example), and I know 
> very little about the wire protocol. If you guys have any unit tests for 
> kernel netatalk services, that would be excellent, but if not, perhaps 
> you can provide some guidance on what sorts of units tests would be 
> appropriate.
> 
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"