Steve French wrote: > below. The obvious need is to create an SendReceive-NoResponse (or > equivalent) which > frees the SMB request buffer after send, and does not copy into an smb > response buffer. The following functions need to be changed to use > How about modifying SendReceive to behave like that if NULL is passed as output buffer ?
>> Obviously it is up to you, as a maintainer. I'd prefer adding a small >> header to each buffer with the buffer size and perhaps a type, or even a >> destructor function pointer. Simple macros could be used to obtain >> buffer size, given the buffer body pointer, or to dispose the buffer. >> That would save from checking the buffer type all over the code >> explicitly, or even worse, make strange assumptions about the type of >> buffer being passed - as we can see this is error-prone. That for a >> little cost of a few additional bytes per buffer. >> > That might be better, although without memory pools, this would perform > much worse > Why ? I don't get your point here. Przemyslaw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
