[erlang-patches] : : More about SCTP and R12B-5

[Raimo Niskanen]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:54:40PM +0100, Per Hedeland wrote:
> Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-patches@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> >Well, since we are getting Linux workstations we
> >have fallen into that trap. But we have not seen
> >any build problems for SCTP on Solaris (10).
> 
> Strange... (assuming that not getting it built is a "problem") -
> 
> $ /bin/sh
> $ uname -srv
> SunOS 5.10 Generic_118833-22
> $ enable_sctp=yes
> $ if test "x$enable_sctp" == "xyes" ; then
> > echo OK
> > fi
> test: unknown operator ==
> $ 

Our daily builds on Solaris 10 did not run for other reasons.
A build failure is something we notice but some machine
mis-setups just make builds silently vanish.
Sorry about that.
Our daily build system needs to be improved for such cases.


> 
> >I am an OpenBSD fan myself, and we have had issues with
> >FreeBSD regarding kernel poll so it has been a while
> >when FreeBSD has been uninteresting as an ErlangOTP
> >platform.
> 
> Uh, "issues regarding kernel poll" => "uninteresting as an ErlangOTP
> platform" is a pretty huge leap - there are "a few" Erlang applications
> that aren't dependant on being able to have thousands of file
> descriptors open with good performance. Erlang has always worked fine on
> *BSD IMHO.

My memory failed me. It was a severe problem with writev(),
and has been fixed for quite a while, but there was a 
long perion in time Erlang did not work fine on FreeBSD.

> 
> Which reminds me, I recently fixed the Erlang "virtual time" to work on
> *BSD (and QNX!:-), using clock_gettime(). However that was for R10, and
> when I looked at this in R12 (which I had already done, but apparently
> in the wrong place) in preparation for sending in a patch, I found that
> it had already been done - but only for Linux, and in a way that I don't
> think will work in general. I.e. it seemed to assume that
> clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) has anything near the actual resolution
> possible with the struct timespec that it returns - that is definitely
> not true on *BSD or QNX, did you verify it on Linux?

I do not know about this one, but can you re-submit your R10 patch,
or let us know how it should be done in R12?

> 
> > And now that FreeBSD has become usable
> >we have no hardware to run on;
> 
> I'm sure it will run just fine on your "Linux workstations".:-)

Surely. Unfortunately it will no longer be a workstation
since we need ClearCase on the workstations.

> 
> >Hopefully on our way to R13 we will have daily builds
> >for FreeBSD, and Giacomo's patches will then be included.
> 
> Do you see this as a requirement? I.e. even if some "trustworthy":-)
> user reports that the release doesn't even build on OS Foo, and supplies
> patches for the problem(s), and those patches don't break the tests on
> the OSes that you do test on - you won't incorporate the patches
> unless/until you do regular builds on OS Foo yourselves?

Not a requirement. But since it sometimes is hard to 
ensure "trustworthy" and it also is easy to make silly
mistakes when applying the patch; having daily builds
sure facilitates trying a patch, and maintaining it.

> 
> --Per

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB