Ondrej Filip <fe...@network.cz> wrote on 2010/04/23 19:28:27: > > On 23.4.2010 19:01, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > Ondrej Filip <fe...@network.cz> wrote on 2010/04/23 18:41:57: > >> > >> On 23.4.2010 18:32, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:20:55PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote: > >>>> Hello! > >>>> > >>>> My primary reaction was "If something isn't broken, don't fix it." I.e., > >>>> unless you have good reasons for rewriting a piece of code, don't do > >>>> that. > >>>> > >>>> Your version is more readable and I would be in favour of accepting it, > >>>> but I would still like to see at least a very simple benchmark which > >>>> shows > >>>> that it is not significantly slower. > >>> > >>> I was curious enough to do some benchmarks and got these results: > >>> > >>> Intel Atom: suggested code ~ 1.2* faster > >>> AMD Geode: no diference > >>> MIPS ADM5120: old code ~ 1.2* faster > >>> > >>> So there isn't really difference in performance of both > >>> implementations. Even on slow embedded AMD Geode CPU, it gives > >>> ~ 180 MB/s. > > > > No difference? what does 1.2 mean? to me this means 20% which is a lot > > And the code is 20% slower on MIPS. So I do not see the point. Anyway, > 20% in a not often used operation does not have to be even visible. > > >> Hmm, so there is no major reason for change. I would really support > >> dont-fix-whats-not-broken approach. And also we should keep different > > > > So it is smaller, faster and easier to read and you still > > want to keep the old code? Very non Open source like I > > must say. > > It was not proven that this code is faster. > > >> code from Quagga to have heterogeneity. > > > > What kind of argument is that? > > Well, let me explain you a few things. It had happened many times, > that some wrong (mainly BGP) routing announcement were exported into > Internet and all routers of one type (often Quaggas) has crashed. BIRD > is used on some very important places like world largest IXPs as a > route server (RS). Each IXP usually has at least two different RSs (if > possible to avoid implementation dependent bugs. The second RS is > usually OpenBGPd of Quagga. So generally speaking, I do not want to > use any code from those routing daemons. > > > Sorry, but this all feels like NIH syndrome. > > Again, BIRD is used on some very important places and therefore we are > very conservative in accepting new patches. But I don't think we have > NIH syndrome. We have been accepting foreign patches since beginning > and Ondrej Zajicek is a good example. :-) He had sent me some new > patches and later we started a regular cooperation and he became a key > developer.
So basically you are saying that outsiders like my self aren't welcome because BIRD is so important to some IXPs that you don't want to take any chanches? I had hoped that the possible changes I would need to do could be fed back into BIRD so I didn't have to maintain them myslef forever. Jocke