On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank
you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's
request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a
chance to say so). :)
Thanks from me too.
My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2
problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is
that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not
familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if
the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an
anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas
of confusion).
So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the
existing:
net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime
net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps
net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized
How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest
that the second sysctl be named
net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do
sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't
quibble on that. :)
It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the
sysctls to something human-friendly. It's always bad enough to go
through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234
means. It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago
and now it's called RFC 54321.
has anything of that ever happened and led to an updated patch again?
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
