svn commit: r243929 - projects/bpfjit

[Jung-uk Kim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-12-06 04:05:27 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> 
>> Author: jkim Date: Thu Dec  6 00:49:59 2012 New Revision: 243929 
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243929
>> 
>> Log: Add an UPDATING entry for the BPF_JITTER deprecation.
> 
> Will it actually be necessary to change the kernel option name --
> my impression was that the previous JIT (and possibly the new JIT)
> are actually entirely transparent to userspace applications -- they
> keep submitting BPF filters per normal...?

Correct.

> In which case, perhaps there's no need to change the option name,
> as that would introduce an upgrade hurdle.  Or is there sufficient 
> difference that we want users to bump into it in order to
> understand that there has been an implementation change?

When I implemented the BPF_JITTER, some people complained that
"jitter" sounds pretty bad for networking guys. ;-)

Seriously, there is no serious technical reason to rename the kernel
option but I wanted to make it simpler.  Also, I don't see any
"upgrade hurdle" because BPF_JITTER was not turned on by default in
GENERIC kernels.

Jung-uk Kim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQwOLvAAoJECXpabHZMqHO23EH/24HP+GgzcdMlRzlnWGuYfN1
J8VD58ZzmIc3te/usGsioMB6UXS2ThLH+t8U3gxXIqOqWHxI2sEwqEJmfOk47L7m
SZRHcwRaZzF7vMPJcJy8ayQzEK6LqRTLzbavDgjshXRn3lUXzlVQKVi/sKp3K0VL
ZwMPj827l1tFtOSA81FPaBRfsNXgBjEle8UTNGhoRZLHEE9UR6jHnrhTxN155IZx
P3RZBspfeI1ODGxk2nh6hFQaEZ6TNBq51jRlAtrmzalxRefPGyMcFei/8mywTBqq
cP+br1fLLnu1oAeF5HJzYo1eJ4RQndwpouBMY4hZy1CihfM9dCuukV9wtUZtI8s=
=GGqN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----