Boris Popov wrote:
[...]
> Since currently there isn't many consumers of this code I can
> suggest to define an option LIBMBUF in the kernel configuration file
and
> add KLD libmbuf (with interface libmbuf), so kernel footprint will
not be
I am in favor of such an option on the condition that it is
temporary. In other words, only until we decide "we have converted
enough code to use this code so we should remove the option now." The
reason is that otherwise, we will be faced with numerous "#ifdef
LIBMBUF ... #else ... #endif" code. I assume this is what you meant,
anyway, so I have no objections. :-) The API looks great by the way,
and I will try to give a more detailed review in the next few days.
:-)
For now:
#define M_TRYWAIT M_WAIT is not right.
(M_WAIT is no longer to be used in the mbuf code.)
The succesfull return values are 0, I don't have a problem with this,
specifically, but I would assume that this:
if (!mb_init(mbp)) ... would be more "logical" (I use the term
loosely) if it meant: "if initialization fails" (now it means "if
initialization is succesful").
> significantly affected. The names of source and header files are
> questionable too and I would appreciate good suggestions (currently
they
> are subr_mbuf.c and subr_mbuf.h).
Hmmm. Maybe subr_mblib.c and libmb.h ? I don't want to turn this
into a bikeshed ( :-) ), so I suggest that you decide. Personally, I
would prefer that it be something other than "subr_mbuf.c" simply
because it may be a little misleading in some cases.
> Well, and finally here you will find full source code of proposed
> API: http://www.butya.kz/~bp/mbuf/
>
> Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
> --
> Boris Popov
> http://www.butya.kz/~bp/
Boris, this is really a great interface and nice looking, clean code.
Thank you!
Regards,
Bosko.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
