Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:05:19 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sbufs in userland Message-ID: <19300.983178319@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:00:10 PST." <20010226010010.Z8663@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010226010010.Z8663@fw.wintelcom.net>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >* Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> [010226 00:25] wrote: >> In message <20010226003319.A19994@panzer.kdm.org>, "Kenneth D. Merry" writes: >> >> >1. Should we put sbufs in userland? >> >> Yes. >> >> >2. If we do put sbufs in userland, what is the best way to do it? >> > There are three different ways I can think of: >> >> I think that libsbuf makes sense. > >Since sbuf was your idea, I'm wondering why you didn't make the >allocation/init of sbufs not possibly require knowledge of the >sbuf internal layout. The reason was that there may be places in the kernel where a static allocation of an sbuf is in order. >Meaning sbuf_new() should return a struct sbuf * such that one can >pass NULL in and get a pointer back without having to know the sbuf >internals. > >Is it too late, impossible or not feasable to fix this? Sounds like a good change to me. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19300.983178319>