Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:08:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal to clarify mbuf handling rules (fwd) Message-ID: <200008281808.LAA70096@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000828134429.84062P-100000@fledge.watson.org> "from Robert Watson at Aug 28, 2000 01:46:56 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson writes: > It might be worth taking another look at the IOLite work, as although it > changes the API, it has a fairly organized book keeping mechanism to track > readable/writable mbufs, do copy-on-write, etc, etc. The code may not be > immediately usable, but might give some ideas about how to handle this > kind of thing, and under what conditions packets will or won't need > modification during processing. Got an URL? > One area that worries me in particular is the ipfw code in relation to the > bridging code: the ipfw code assumes it can pullup the packet to get a > contiguous IP header; however, callers may not necessarily like that. I don't see the problem.. can you explain? > Similarly, issues of packet freeing: I'd rather see IP filtering code > return "yay" or "nay" on the packet, and allow the caller to free it if > they see fit. Another symetric mbuf handling issue, where calling > conventions aren't well-defined. Yes, that would be an improvement as well. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com 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?200008281808.LAA70096>