On 2 Oct 2010, at 16:29, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> On 9/30/10 10:49 AM, Ryan Stone wrote: >>> It's not a big thing but it would be nice to replace the m_next and >>> m_nextpkt fields with queue.h macros. >> funny, I've never even thought of that.. > > I have, and it's a massive change touching code all over the kernel in vast > quantities. While in principle it's a good idea (consistently avoid > hand-crafted linked lists), it's something I'd discourage on the basis that > it probably won't significant reduce the kernel bug count, but will make it > even harder for vendors with large local changes to the network stack to keep > up.
I think it could also increase the kernel bug count. Unfortunately, we can't do this incrementally. > (We might consider revisiting the proposal for 10.0, perhaps? I'd rather we > burnt the cycles on fleshing out network stack virtualization more thoroughly > for 9.x though.) I agree that this doesn't bring us a great improvement for the amount of work that's required. Regards, -- Rui Paulo _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
