On Tuesday, January 06, 2015 07:07:11 PM Bryan Venteicher wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 1/6/2015 4:00 PM, Bryan Venteicher wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM, John Nielsen <li...@jnielsen.net > > > > > > <mailto:li...@jnielsen.net>> wrote: > > > Bryan- > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Bryan Venteicher <bry...@freebsd.org > > > > > > <mailto:bry...@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > > > Author: bryanv > > > > Date: Fri Oct 10 06:08:59 2014 > > > > New Revision: 272886 > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/272886 > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > Add context pointer and source address to the UDP tunnel callback > > > > > > > > These are needed for the forthcoming vxlan implementation. The > > > > context > > > > > > pointer means we do not have to use a spare pointer field in the > > > > inpcb, > > > > > > and the source address is required to populate vxlan's forwarding > > > > table. > > > > > > While I highly doubt there is an out of tree consumer of the UDP > > > > tunneling callback, this change may be a difficult to eventually > > > > MFC. > > > > > I noticed this comment while doing an MFC of vxlan to my local tree. > > > Do you think an MFC to 10-STABLE of this change (and vxlan > > > generally) will be feasible? Is there precedent for ABI changes like > > > this being sanctioned? Could symbol versioning help? > > > > > > I'd like to get some consensus on whether this commit is OK to MFC. With > > > this commit, vxlan should be an easy to MFC. > > > > Breaking ABI will potentially hurt packages. FreeBSD builds packages for > > the oldest supported release on a branch. If you break ABI in 10.2 while > > we are building packages for 10.1 then any packages using these > > interfaces may not work right or result in panics packages with kmods. > > Please consider that. > > The only user visible change of this commit would be the addition of a > field at the end of 'struct udpcb'. I don't think that is a problem, at > least a similar change didn't prevent the MFC of UDP Lite. > > The kernel part of this changes the UDP tunneling functions which I guess > there could be a 3rd party module out there, but I very highly doubt that, > based on how un-useful the previous interface was.
Userland should not be impacted by this at all. (Nothing in userland cares about udpcb's internals.) I think there was only ever one consumer for the existing UDP tunneling code (bz@ knows what it is). I'm not sure where it lives. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
