Future of netnatm: looking for testers

[Robert Watson]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:

> I would request two things:
>
> 1) the extra couple of months; this will not prevent the evitable removal
>   yet only defer it.

Sounds good to me -- my goal is not to remove NETNATM, rather, the remove code 
that doesn't compile or work.  I'm happy to sit on this for a while and see if 
things improve; fixing the former is great, fixing the latter would be even 
better :-).

(I wonder if Harti is in a situation to test any of this still?)

Robert

>
> 2) If anyone of you is using (or want to be able to (continue to) use) NATM
>   or can test things, I re-enabled it with most of the code in HEAD and
>   the patch is available for 8,x as well but need to work with somoene
>   to make sure it'll really work.  I am willing to spend more time on it
>   if you send me an email.
>
> Best Regards,
> Bjoern
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Author: bz
>> Date: Wed Dec 15 22:58:45 2010
>> New Revision: 216466
>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216466
>> 
>> Log:
>>  Bring back (most of) NATM to avoid further bitrot after r186119.
>>  Keep three lines disabled which I am unsure if they had been used at all.
>>  This will allow us to seek testers and possibly bring it all back.
>
> If you have the ability to test (on 8.x or HEAD) or are using NATM,
> please get in contact with me.
>
>
>
>>  Discussed with:      rwatson
>>  MFC after:   7 weeks
>> 
>> Modified:
>>  head/sys/conf/NOTES
>>  head/sys/netinet/if_atm.c
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- 
> Bjoern A. Zeeb                              Welcome a new stage of life.
>        <ks> Going to jail sucks -- <bz> All my daemons like it!
>  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html
>