From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 24 08:57:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F5C106566C for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:57:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mat.macy@gmail.com) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1247C8FC19 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:57:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mat.macy@gmail.com) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k31so2027083fkk.11 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:57:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=jxDRyaHaIl0yUGNfl2I70y+k/JG/f9bME7EBKylL3Tg=; b=QmIdCI1B6Zyq78C2wa7YngXSB+tlkTOBdx48CUOuYR9H4gHrQ74sFHp96CiJAlRbrC doXCmTNtEPK6XRTQieaD0z6wtfBy6lD2cfZyVuoE86SJ7cP3M2H9zS87WA0rsvvV4E+q dQqly9hpHtqOZVpdVpaephWhE5JrdOcUArQAA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=TKdHUfotyJeIn0RLF3FuqycddYFBihJWJ7wCjVwwnHg4I3iTXBuYvfxVIKg9okqGnQ PnSo26AoJBOCB/mg7y2shjkPQQae4QsULoodsRMDQp1FI8WrC3t+5obuzCAai1m9VCr9 1ZfMylVwmXo622/SSE7L2tLnLRf1H7Ojony34= Received: by 10.125.142.5 with SMTP id u5mr47037mkn.126.1216889843213; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.125.139.12 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3c1674c90807240157l58c935c2r945d894193502b1f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:57:23 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" Sender: mat.macy@gmail.com To: "Robert Watson" In-Reply-To: <20080724084240.C63347@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3c1674c90807201514o5bafba72r6be84de6e37a5525@mail.gmail.com> <20080724084240.C63347@fledge.watson.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 71f50d4084d7f9bc Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: moving sockbuf in to its own header X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:57:25 -0000 Thanks for the follow-up. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Kip Macy wrote: > >> Actually, I'd like to re-factor multiple parts of socketvar in to separate >> files. >> >> Please provide feedback on the following: >> >> http://www.fsmware.com/socketvar_refactor.diff > > This seems like a fairly disruptive change from the perpective of managing > future MFCs, and likewise makes it quite a bit harder to diff branches and > make sure things haven't been missed. That said, I'm not entirely opposed > to it, since I think this decomposition is a fairly reasonable one. Do make > sure you've done a complete make universe to hit all the user consumers, > such as netstat, etc, that grub around in the kernel parts and make sure > there are no surprises. A few comments: > > - Please propagate the copyright/license from socketvar.h to all derived new > files. > - You seem to have a lot of extra blank lines -- generally speaking, at most > one blank line between pieces of code/comments/etc is required. > - The new include files seem not to have forward declarations of the structs > referenced from other structures, so in practice you may find that > including > one requires including the others. Fixing this is easy and, at the very > least, non-harmful. It would also lay the way towards not doing nested > includes of various includes from socketvar.h in the future. > - One of the elements of the BSD style(9) I don't like is the tab between > "struct" and "structname" for fields in older structures. Perhaps this is > why I notice that it isn't there in the new struct sockbuf line in struct > socket, and likewise xsockbuf in xsocket :-) > > If you do make this change, check in with Peter about whether we now prefer > the use of svn copy. > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge > >> >> Thanks, >> Kip >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Kip Macy wrote: >>> >>> TOE drivers need to be able to directly enqueue data in to a socket >>> buffer and thus benefit from having knowledge of sockbuf internals. >>> However, there is no need for them to know about other socket >>> definitions. Thus I would like to move sockbuf and accompanying >>> definitions to their own header. >>> >>> This is a fairly straightforward change so I don't really see the need >>> to wait more than a few days for feedback: >>> >>> http://www.fsmware.com/sockbuf.h.diff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >