Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:45:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf re-write(s): v 0.2: request-for-comments Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006281943470.3355-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <20000628154740.A53117@panzer.kdm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> FWIW, I'm in favor of a pointer argument as well. The way I implemented it
> was actually with a third argument, instead of changing the int to void.
> i.e.:
[...]
> I don't feel too strongly about it either way -- I suppose it's about the
> same amount of work to port older code. (I just put an ifdef in the
> sendfile code, which doesn't use the third argument in my tree.)
The u_int is really unnecessary. If the caller needs more important
information, he can pass anything he likes, including a data structure,
or even a pointer to the mbuf. So this information can be extracted in
either case.
>
> Ken
> --
> Kenneth Merry
> ken@kdm.org
>
>
--
Bosko Milekic * Voice/Mobile: 514.865.7738 * Pager: 514.921.0237
bmilekic@technokratis.com * http://www.technokratis.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006281943470.3355-100000>