On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:07, Rui Paulo <rpa...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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.
Can't we? What about a union, so that we can gradually convert things but keep ABI and API compatibility? I mean, as long as we use the right queue.h type, anyway, it should be consistent? STAILQ, presumably. _______________________________________________ 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"
