From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 22 11:12:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CD21065677 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:12:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rermilov@team.vega.ru) Received: from mail.vega.ru (infra.dev.vega.ru [90.156.167.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA848FC15 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:12:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rermilov@team.vega.ru) Received: from [87.242.97.68] (port=55671 helo=edoofus.dev.vega.ru) by mail.vega.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Jd1KI-0001Qu-Mj for arch@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:51:50 +0000 Received: from edoofus.dev.vega.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edoofus.dev.vega.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2MApjEB041826 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:51:45 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from rermilov@team.vega.ru) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.dev.vega.ru (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m2MApjDr041825 for arch@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:51:45 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from rermilov@team.vega.ru) X-Authentication-Warning: edoofus.dev.vega.ru: ru set sender to rermilov@team.vega.ru using -f Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:51:45 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: arch@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20080322105145.GA41672@team.vega.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: Subject: Disposal of a misleading M_TRYWAIT X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:12:54 -0000 I'd like to remove the misleading uses of M_TRYWAIT throughout the tree and clean up some dead code that assumes its original behavior (that it could return NULL). Since the advent of MBUMA in FreeBSD (whatever), M_TRYWAIT has meant M_WAITOK. (The reason for M_TRYWAIT itself was that an original mbuf's M_WAIT could return NULL.) There is little or no sign that this will change, and there are lots of consumers that already pass M_WAITOK to mbuf allocator routines and rely on its invariants, so support for the concept of M_TRYWAIT has rotted and would have to be re-written anyway if reintroduced. http://people.freebsd.org/~ru/patches/M_TRYWAIT.patch Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer