Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:56:55 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, bmilekic@technokratis.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing the names of some M_flags Message-ID: <20001216135655.L89463@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <200012161945.eBGJjh507797@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-net/20001216112130.Y19572@fw.wintelcom.net> <200012161934.eBGJYdj75335@prism.flugsvamp.com> <200012161945.eBGJjh507797@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:43PM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > In article <local.mail.freebsd-net/Pine.BSF.4.21.0012161435130.34015-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> you write: > > > > > >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > >> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT. > > >> > > >> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT should reduce the delta by quite a bit and > > >> M_TRYWAIT vs M_TRY_WAIT because you have M_DONTWAIT/M_DONTBLOCK. > > >> > > >> -Alfred > > > > > > I agree. Anyone else before I re-roll? :-) > > > > I second Alfred's suggestion. > > Is this just going to make portablity between the various *BSD kernels > more difficult for what's essentially a cosmetic change? I'm thinking > of things like KAME, ALTQ, etc. Well, as it is a change in semantics, it does help to catch problems in porting. AFAIK, NetBSD (and probably Open) do not allow m_get() to return NULL in the M_WAIT case, so the underlying code will have to be changed in order to handle this difference anyway. -- Jonathan 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?20001216135655.L89463>