On 2 Oct 2010, at 21:35, Juli Mallett wrote: > 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.
Well, I don't have the layout of the mbuf struct offhand, but it's an idea worth investigating. 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"
