On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:56:24 +1100
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2013-Jan-17 14:38:06 -0500, "Stephen J. Kiernan"
> wrote:
> >The patch also includes moving zlib.[ch] and zlibutil.h out of net and
> >into sys/libkern (for the .c) and sys/sys (for the .h).
>
> Good.
>
> >It really doesn't make muc
On 2013-Jan-17 14:38:06 -0500, "Stephen J. Kiernan" wrote:
>The patch also includes moving zlib.[ch] and zlibutil.h out of net and
>into sys/libkern (for the .c) and sys/sys (for the .h).
Good.
>It really doesn't make much sense for that code to live in net,
>especially when so many things whi
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:07:06 +0100
Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:53, Steve Kiernan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:11:27 +0100
> > Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >
> >> On 17.01.2013 20:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote:
> >>> The network stack as a module patch has been separate
On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:53, Steve Kiernan wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:11:27 +0100
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
>> On 17.01.2013 20:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote:
>>> The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be found
>>> in the following location:
>>> http://people.fre
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:11:27 +0100
Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 17.01.2013 20:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote:
> > The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be found
> > in the following location:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/netstack-v2.diff
>
> This is qu
On 17.01.2013 20:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote:
The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be found in
the following location:
http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/netstack-v2.diff
This is quite some work and a lot of changes which will a moment to review.
Can you
On Jan 17, 2013 14:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote:
The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be
found in the following location:
http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/netstack-v2.diff
Details about these changes:
I also forgot to mention in the previous e-mail.
The
The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be
found in the following location:
http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/netstack-v2.diff
Details about these changes:
1. Network stack module support infrastructure
kern/{kern_netstack.c,netstack_if.m,netstack.h}
>
>
> I renamed the interface implementation from mumble_ddi.h to
> if_device.[ch] and put a diff here:
>http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/if_device.diff
Looks reasonable to me. Gives some protection from API change
But to really make use of this you could have driver specific meth
On Sep 5, 2012, at 1:16 PM, George Neville-Neil wrote:
> One more note. Can you break the patches down into more bite sized pieces?
> They're hard
> to review as is.
Following up finally. Let's focus on the device driver interface.
I renamed the interface implementation from mumble_ddi.h to
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:28:16AM -0700, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
> Hi George,
> Thanks for taking a look. Some answers/comments below.
>
> >
> >> Building FreeBSD without the network stack (network stack as a module)
> >> --
> >>
Hi George,
On 9/5/12 1:15 PM, "George Neville-Neil" wrote:
>
>> Building FreeBSD without the network stack (network stack as a module)
>> --
>> Today, not compiling networking stack related files in the kernel breaks
>> the kerne
On 9/7/12 8:48 AM, "Julian Elischer" wrote:
struct socket {
int so_fibnum; /* routing domain for this socket */
uint32_t so_user_cookie;
+ u_int so_oqueue; /* manage send prioritizing based on
application
needs */
+ u_short so_lrid;
At Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:28:16 -0700,
Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
>
>
> >
> >> struct socket {
> >>
> >>int so_fibnum; /* routing domain for this socket */
> >>uint32_t so_user_cookie;
> >> + u_int so_oqueue; /* manage send prioritizing based on
> >>application
> >> needs */
> >
On 9/7/12 4:28 PM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
Hi George,
Thanks for taking a look. Some answers/comments below.
Building FreeBSD without the network stack (network stack as a module)
--
This would be interesting for many reasons
Hi George,
Thanks for taking a look. Some answers/comments below.
>
>> Building FreeBSD without the network stack (network stack as a module)
>> --
>>
>This would be interesting for many reasons, and I think it would be a good
>co
One more note. Can you break the patches down into more bite sized pieces?
They're hard
to review as is.
Best,
George
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "fre
On Aug 25, 2012, at 00:11 , Anuranjan Shukla wrote:
> At Juniper Networks, we've been using FreeBSD to build JUNOS (Juniper's
> network operating system). So far the additions and changes to the
> functionality were made inline, making the task of upgrading to new
> versions of FreeBSD progressi
On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:24 AM, PseudoCylon wrote:
> Wouldn't using prepossessor macro or hooking be more flexible? (Could
> support multiple functionality.)
Macros make it impossible to treat ifnet as an opaque type.
As such, it won't be possible to havr a single pre-compiled
driver that can wor
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:11:45 -0700
> From: Anuranjan Shukla
> Subject: Proposal for changes to network device drivers and network
> stack (RFC)
> To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
> Message-ID:
&g
At Juniper Networks, we've been using FreeBSD to build JUNOS (Juniper's
network operating system). So far the additions and changes to the
functionality were made inline, making the task of upgrading to new
versions of FreeBSD progressively difficult. We've been looking at JUNOS
to see if we can bu
21 matches
Mail list logo
