Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:41 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf.h rev 1.142 Message-ID: <20040519191112.Q14183@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru> References: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > ... > what was the reason for moving ip_claim_next_hop() from ip_var.h > to mbuf.h? As far as I understand mbuf.h contains declarations to > mbuf interface, which is lower than IP protocol, or sockets. > > m_claim_next_hop() is not really a pure mbuf function, while all other > functions in mbuf.h are. > > After rev 1.142 including mbuf.h requires including of netinet/in.h, > and this is not logically correct. It's not quite that bad. It doesn't need a complete struct sockaddr_in typem so it doesn't require including netinet/in.h. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040519191112.Q14183>