christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:

> On Feb 21,  2:08pm, jonathan@Pescadero.dsg.stanford.edu (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: IPSEC in GENERIC
>
> | >He is merging inpcb and in6pcb, the same way FreeBSD and OpenBSD have done.
> | >
> | >| Or to turn that around: what else is is in-progress that that'd break?
> | >
> | >This will break his branch, 
> | 
> | Sure. But if we finished clean-implmented code to using the struct
> | inpcbhdr, and removes all the pointer-jumping, then we don't *need*
> | Rui's branch, do we?
> | 
> | To turn my question around: after my first pass at this, we discussed
> | various approaches: merging pcbs, or introducing a common prefix.
> | 
> | What changed beetwen the introduction of struct inpbcbhdr and now, so
> | as to make a unified inpcb/in6pcb desirable now, when back then, that
> | wasn't a desirable approach?
>
> 1. Makes our code similar to other BSD's.
> 2. Without it we cannot make mapped addresses work easily and this breaks
>    java.
> 3. It eliminates a lot of common code.
>
> | >and it will make us look very different than
> | >FreeBSD and OpenBSD which have a merged inpcb/in6pbc.
> | 
> | FreeBSD's networking stack is already so different (SMP locking, ...)
> | that as I see it, this marginal compatibility with FreeBSD buys us
> | nothing, in practical terms.  Is there something in OpenBSD which this
> | buys us?
>
> The major issues are SMP locking and the function dispatch instead of switch in
> ctlinput(). I like the function dispatcher more and I think it is simpler
> to read and maintain. Once we have merged pcb's it will be easy to move
> to that.
>
> Practically making our code diverge from the others for no good reason
> increases our maintenance cost. There aren't many people who have the
> time and expertise to devote to improving the NetBSD stack...
>
> | I guess I'm partly confused becuase, from where I'm sitting, a common
> | header followed by IPv4 or IPv6-specific portions seems cleaner and
> | more in our spirit of "doing things right".
>
> The problem here is that you end up with 2 pcb structures that need to
> be passed back and forth between v4 and v6 code in the mapped address
> case. 

On HEAD, we have 3 structs. The inpcbhdr, inpcb and in6pcb.

What I am doing is merging then in one, 'inpcb', struct.

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/sys/netinet/in_pcb.h?rev=1.41.4.7&content-type=text/plain

-- 
  Rui Paulo			<rpaulo@{NetBSD{,-PT}.org,fnop.net}>