Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did
> not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the
> semantics of M_LEADINGSPACE. However I would strongly vote for
> committing this change to CURRENT as well, given the huge performance
> implications (even if the 21143 were not buggy, not being able to
> write into clusters hurts a lot of pieces of the networking stack).
Incidently, this is a poster-child example of why fixes are not to go to
-stable first. It leads to exactly this sort of lossage.
This does not go in CURRENT as is: as discussed in -net,
M_LEADINGSPACE should not check for writability, just report
available space, leaving the check to some other piece of code.
Unfortunately, some code in the tree depends on M_LEADINGSPACE
checking for writability, and so implementing M_LEADINGSPACE
in the correct way also requires to fix the incorrect usage.
This is what will be done in CURRENT, but for STABLE, this is
probably more than we want, and so we are happy (more or less) with
this simple fix.
How about fixing it for real as described in the commit message?
Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message