Re: r228700 can't dhclient em0

看板FB_current作者時間14年前 (2011/12/21 10:32), 編輯推噓0(000)
留言0則, 0人參與, 最新討論串16/27 (看更多)
--K/NRh952CO+2tg14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:23:54PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Brooks, >=20 > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:51:34AM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > B> We almost certainly need to back r228571 out. This is not an acceptab= le > B> upgrade path that would be acceptable historically. Specially, we have > B> effectively promised users that an X.Y world will work on an X+1.0 > B> kernel for most of history. There are obvious exceptions to this, but > B> we have never allowed ifconfig to be one of them (I broke it many years > B> ago with my first attempt to add if_epoch to if_data and had to back > B> that out). >=20 > Pardon, where did we promise that? The applications in jail should work, > but not kernel configuration tools. The network facilities like ipfw > and pf has changed their ABI numerous times, making a new kernel > with older world inaccessible via network after boot. We've not promised it in writing, but by not breaking it for many years we're created an effective promise IMO. > Considering r228571: we need to specify vhid as additional address > attribute in atomic manner, via one ioctl(). Address can't be first > configured, and then made redundant, that would lead it to being > static for a short period, sending gratutious ARP announcement, etc. >=20 > An assumption that we are not allowed to change ABI for our own tools > strongly discourages bringing in new features :( I'm not saying we can't change the ABI. I am saying that we should make sure we can support a remote, console-less upgrade from what ever 9.x branches are practical to 10.0 in the average case. We've set the expectation that this will work and IMO it's a reasonable expectation. =20 We've violated it in a few cases such as the emX->igbX fiasco, but by and large most users have been able to do this. I guess I'm ok with dealing with this in HEAD, but I'm not OK with it for all upgrades from 9.x. -- Brooks --K/NRh952CO+2tg14 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFO8T26XY6L6fI4GtQRApWGAJ9pA/Z15kmu+2ga7r7mnWv4jsSN2wCdGlej E0MUDmeTkxV7N/9p9/UuSu0= =nCux -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K/NRh952CO+2tg14--
文章代碼(AID): #1EyKKYsE (FB_current)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1EyKKYsE (FB_current)