On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, at 01:25 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:21:45PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > A> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > A> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017, at 02:41 AM, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote: > A> > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 09:51, Josh Paetzel <jpaet...@freebsd.org> > wrote: > A> > > > New Revision: 323770 > A> > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/323770 > A> > > > > A> > > > Log: > A> > > > MFC: 323068 > A> > > > > A> > > > Allow kldload tcpmd5 > A> > > > A> > > Wasn't this reverted on ^/head ? > A> > > A> > Not this one. What was reverted on HEAD was the removal of options > A> > IPSEC from GENERIC. > A> > > A> > The endgoal is options IPSEC and options IPSEC_SUPPORT in GENERIC, > which > A> > will allow someone running GENERIC to kldload tcpmd5. > A> > A> I'll shamelessly steal this thread to ask somewhat related question > that > A> was bothering me since the original botched commit: what is the reason > A> behind IPSEC_SUPPORT option? If it does not cost anything, why not > just > A> optimize it away; if it does imply something more, can you shed some > A> light on why is it needed (and/or might not be)? Thanks, > > The reason is to make loadable ipsec.ko. I actually don't understand > why do we still have IPSEC in GENERIC once it is loadable. Doesn't it > still have performance impact? > > -- > Gleb Smirnoff
options IPSEC no longer has a performance impact. gnn@ fixed that. Why IPSEC_SUPPORT can't just get folded in with IPSEC I can't answer. I looked briefly at the code but that didn't tell me anything useful. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
