On 05/21/2015 16:03, Hiren Panchasara wrote: > On 05/21/15 at 03:27P, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >> On 05/20/15 23:19, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >>> On 05/20/2015 02:33, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >>>> On 05/20/15 14:24, Hiren Panchasara wrote: >>>>> On 05/20/15 at 02:13P, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >>>>>> Hi Hiren, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/20/15 11:08, Hiren Panchasara wrote: >>>>>>> Author: hiren Date: Wed May 20 01:08:01 2015 New Revision: >>>>>>> 283136 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/283136 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Log: Add a new sysctl net.inet.tcp.hostcache.purgenow=1 to >>>>>>> expire and purge all entries in hostcache immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In collaboration with: bz, rwatson MFC after: 1 week Relnotes: >>>>>>> yes Sponsored by: Limelight Networks >>>>>> >>>>>> Why introduce a new sysctl and not change the existing behaviour >>>>>> of net.inet.tcp.hostcache.purge? >>>>> >>>>> I thought it'd make more sense to keep the existing behavior as is >>>>> and provide new knob for the new behavior. >>>> >>>> Don't think so - why would deferring a purge to the next purge run be >>>> useful compared to purging immediately? I'd strongly suggest you adapt >>>> this change to the existing purge sysctl. I can't see why anyone would >>>> miss the old functionality. >>> >>> I am generally wary of a question such as "Why would anyone want...", >>> because as soon as the code is released, someone answers it. >>> >>> That being said, I have always wanted Hiren's purgenow behavior, and I've >>> always been annoyed by the lazy-purge behavior. I would suggest >>> implementing Lawrence's suggestion, but NOT MFC'ing it, since that would be >>> a disruptive change. >>> >>> Thanks for your work, Hiren. >> >> I see no reason not to MFC it - it's not a POLA violation for a stable >> branch. When the user requests a purge, it's surely equally as good (and >> I think anyone of right mind would argue better ;) to purge immediately >> than some number of seconds "n" in the future, where "n" is between 1 >> and the value of net.inet.tcp.hostcache.prune. > > I *do* want to MFC the change. And if there are no major objections, I'll go > ahead with what Lawrence is suggesting: changing current purge behavior in > -head > and 10.
I don't strongly object. I like the new behavior, and I expect most people would, as long as it's clearly stated in the Release Notes (as it will be, since you tagged it thus). Thanks for your work, Eric
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
