On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:43PM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos 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.
Well, as it is a change in semantics, it does help to catch problems
in porting. AFAIK, NetBSD (and probably Open) do not allow m_get()
to return NULL in the M_WAIT case, so the underlying code will have to
be changed in order to handle this difference anyway.
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
