Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011116 18:02] wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > [..] > > > What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location > > > for those things, defined in a "per protocol family" manner. > > > > > > Luigi has already tried this scheme by defining a > > > dummynet specific mbuf type that can be prepended to the > > > front of packets. What I suggest is to extend this > > > to defining a MT_PROTOSTORAGE. (or similar) mbuf type > > > that generic networking code is educated to ignore, > > > and that protocols can use to pass packet-specific state > > > information from one place to another. > > > > Uhh.. no thanks. Whatever you do, do *NOT* abuse the mbuf system > > for this. We went to a lot of trouble (well, Garrett specifically) > > to rid the stacks of this obscenity. Do *NOT* generalize it and undo > > it. MT_DUMMYNET must die, not be propagated elsewhere. > > > > If you want to have some general storage mechnaism, do *not* use mbufs > > for it. > > *cough* > kthread_setspecific() > *cough* > kthread_getspecific() > *cough*
packets can be re-ordered due to queueing etc. (* we should not be trying to decide at this point what a 3rd part module may or may not want to do). I think it needs to be storage associated with the packet. > > or just fix the code to pass this around as an extra paramter. > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," > start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' > http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
