Re: setjmp/lonjmp

[Yury Tarasievich <grog@xxxxxxx>]

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:41:45PM +0200, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
>
> > A word from "the masses": this is completely justified -- developer's -- 
> > point of view. On the other hand: cleaning of the code per se gives 
> > plenty of opportunities to break what's working. Like, reducing vinum 
> > functionality (or breaking it), or having ipfw removed. Doesn't look good.
>
>
> I had a quite impossible panic from vinum a while ago which most likely
> relates to longjmp handling. But I'm not sure and the current code is
> exactly for the interwindling of code pathes via longjmp hard to follow.
>
> Concerning the removal of ipfw1, it won't happen soon. Once ipfw2

Removal of ipfw1 proper could happen every time, for me.
Not so with notion to remove ipfw2.
Generally, no advanced concept usage at all is interchangeable with 
another (as, like in this case, IPFW2 vs. PF, or vinum vs. HW RAID 
controllers).

> fully works, it can die. Another requirement or ipfw(2) is to use
> the normal firewall API, since it currently hooks into way too
> much places directly. This means an improvement in usability too,
> because ipfw would be fully dynamically loadable.

Well, I want to believe. :)