Subject: Re: ALTQ options
To: David Howland <email@example.com>
From: Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/14/2004 20:40:29
> >> Is it only an oversight that ALTQ_PRIQ is not declared in files.altq?
> I believe that it is. I have never myself tried to compile the -2.0
> branch, so I cannot confirm or deny your problem, but it works for me in
> the -1.6 branch (where ALTQ_PRIQ is included in files.altq). Why don't
It is interesting to see that it was there in 1.6 . I looked to the CVS
history and in rev. 1.2 many options were added to the declaration, but
ALTQ_PRIQ (and ALTQ_NOPCC) were removed (by Christos Zoulas, so Cc:ing
him). The log message does not seem to mention why, so this is probably
> you try to add it manually to files.altq to see how it works? If that
> fixes it, you should submit a PR for this problem. If you don't know
> how, you can ask on the mailing lists.
Well, I'm not sure how to test how it works. I do not use altq, I was
just recompiling a kernel, so I wanted to add ALTQ support, because I
could need it in the future.
> >> Also, is there a reason why ALTQ is not in the GENERIC kernel, not
> >> even in a commented form? Is it still considered experimental?
> This is a good question. There is (in my opinion) a horrible lack of
> documentation/help on ALTQ in netbsd. I'm not sure that its considered
> experimental, since that really implies some kind of active development.
"Which is not happening" that's what you wanted to say? :-)
> Probably the developer that put it in doesn't deem it important enough
> for GENERIC. The best place to look for help is in the mailing list
> archives. Just be careful because some of that information is outdated
Well, this answers my question :-)
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: jdc
> Date: Wed Jun 30 21:08:45 UTC 2004
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/i386/conf [netbsd-2-0]: GENERIC
> Log Message:
> Pull up revision 1.616 (requested by abs in ticket #567).
> Add (commented out) ALTQ options to all GENERIC-like files
Sorry for the noise, my 2.0_BETA is a bit outdated.
Thanks for your reply.