Ryota Ozaki ozak...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hi rmind,
maxlen of ip{,6}_pktq cannot be updated via sysctl.
It seems that we need to do it in sysctl_pktq_count
somehow.
Now it can:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2014/06/09/msg055432.html
--
Mindaugas
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
rm...@netbsd.org wrote:
Ryota Ozaki ozak...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hi rmind,
maxlen of ip{,6}_pktq cannot be updated via sysctl.
It seems that we need to do it in sysctl_pktq_count
somehow.
Now it can:
Hi rmind,
maxlen of ip{,6}_pktq cannot be updated via sysctl.
It seems that we need to do it in sysctl_pktq_count
somehow.
Thanks,
ozaki-r
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
rm...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hello,
As we are trying to bring more parallelism in our network
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 09:56:15PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
I am surprised... no, more like shocked really... that someone as
experienced as you are could think this way.
Yes, experienced. That means I've seen all manner of code written.
And I've never before seen anyone justify a
On 30/05/2014 6:30 AM, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:01:23AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
[code cleanup]
All of your arguments boil down to can't trust someone else.
Why do you need to be so insulting of other developers in your arguments?
Do you think you're
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:46:22AM -0500, David Young wrote:
I think that Mindaugas is being pragmatic here. Developers are not
equally brilliant[*], observant of the rules, or perceptive of the
patterns, layers, or abstractions in the code. He is writing the code
in a way that discourages
Hi,
Thor Lancelot Simon:
Indeed, I note that over in tech-kern there is a long running thread
in which a user, trying to debug a problem with NetBSD, complains that
internals of the cd9660 implementation are *not* properly hidden
Urm, i did not complain but asked about the API/ABI rank of
I would like to point out that exposing the guts of structures has
bitten us many times in the past (FILE, etc.). Once you expose a
struct, you are making the size of it known; even if your API does
not need it, people might use that fact to keep local copies or
declare objects of that type.
On 29/05/2014 12:29 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
On 29/05/2014 5:06 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
No, there is no need to expose the structure. Even if there would be
another internal component using the
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:01:23AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
On 29/05/2014 12:29 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
On 29/05/2014 5:06 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
No, there is no need to expose the structure.
I think that Mindaugas is being pragmatic here. Developers are not
equally brilliant[*], observant of the rules, or perceptive of the
patterns, layers, or abstractions in the code. He is writing the code
in a way that discourages us from casually misusing or breaking it by
getting under
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:01:23AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
[code cleanup]
All of your arguments boil down to can't trust someone else.
Why do you need to be so insulting of other developers in your arguments?
Do you think you're the only person capable of making good design
On Fri 30 May 2014 at 05:46:37 +1000, matthew green wrote:
regardless of how brilliant developers are, i want my code to be
written like this anyway. it helps *everyone*.
Sometimes I say, on the topic of code, if I don't understand it, it's
probably wrong. That's not because I'm so brilliant,
On 29/05/2014 5:06 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
No, there is no need to expose the structure. Even if there would be
another internal component using the structure(s) one should consider
accessors/mutators. Even if that component would have a good
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:12:35AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
The method that I've seen used in Solaris (for example) is to use
foo_impl.h to providethe details of data structure that are essentially
private and those .h filesmay or may notbe shipped as part of the end
user system.Using
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
On 29/05/2014 5:06 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Darren Reed darr...@netbsd.org wrote:
No, there is no need to expose the structure. Even if there would be
another internal component using the structure(s) one should consider
accessors/mutators.
16 matches
Mail list logo
