Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:15:57 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: hm@hcs.de Cc: freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Subject: Re: i4b and netgraph (was: I4B support for US ISDN?) Message-ID: <199901282115.NAA03956@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <m105yey-00003OC@hcswork.hcs.de> from Hellmuth Michaelis at "Jan 28, 99 10:07:32 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hellmuth Michaelis writes: > When reading ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/archie/netgraph/man/netgraph.4.html, > its easy to get that wrong impression: > > In order to minimize latency, all netgraph operations are functional. > ^^^ > That is, data and control messages are delivered by making function calls > rather than by using queues and mailboxes. Yes, that's misleading... I've fixed it. Actually, it's not completely the way you want it yet. As it stands now, when you send an mbuf, you have the option of either sending it directly (ie, functionally) or sending it by queueing it for delivery later. However, there's no way as the *receiving node* to say, "I want all data sent to me to be delivered by qeueuing". So all sending nodes would have to "cooperate". This ability would be easy to add and something we'll probably do now that you've pointed it out. :-) -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901282115.NAA03956>