Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:08:39 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@vicor-nb.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack. Message-ID: <200111170108.fAH18d144195@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111161611270.6632-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20011117000251.A13B93811@overcee.netplex.com.au> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111161611270.6632-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:13:41 -0800 (PST), Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> said: > (and anyhow Garrett got rid of the 'static' uses > of mbufs, not 'travelling' 'per packet' uses..) Only because I did not have the time or stomach then to introduce `struct packet' everywhere. All of the queueing and metadata crap should be pulled out of mbufs and put into a higher-level object. It's OK if the higher-level object HAS_A(mbuf), but not IS_A(mbuf). This is A Lot Of Work, but would seriously clean up the code in a number of areas. As a general rule, though, reentrancy was not a particular concern of the original design -- that's why there are queues and soft ISRs all over the place -- because you would blow the kernel stack long before that became an issue. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111170108.fAH18d144195>