* Louis A. Mamakos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001216 11:45] wrote:
> > In article
><local.mail.freebsd-net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
I agree, however this argument keeps coming up:
"I thought M_WAIT meant it would wait forever!"
Personally, I think developers should do a bit more research
and should have noticed all the places where M_WAIT was followed
by a check for NULL and be able to bridge the gap.
So honestly, I'm against the change, but if it has to be done
then I'd like to see the M_DONTWAIT and M_TRYWAIT.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
