On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Is this just going to make portablity between the various *BSD kernels
> > more difficult for what's essentially a cosmetic change? I'm thinking
> > of things like KAME, ALTQ, etc.
>
> I agree, however this argument keeps coming up:
> "I thoug
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:45:43PM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you write:
> > >
> > >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT.
> > >>
> > >> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT
* Louis A. Mamakos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001216 11:45] wrote:
> > In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you write:
> > >
> > >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT.
> > >>
> > >> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT shou
> In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you write:
> >
> >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> >> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT.
> >>
> >> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT should reduce the delta by quite a bit and
> >> M_TRYWAIT vs M_TRY_WAIT because
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you write:
>
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT.
>>
>> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT should reduce the delta by quite a bit and
>> M_TRYWAIT vs M_TRY_WAIT because you have M_DONTWA
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT.
>
> Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT should reduce the delta by quite a bit and
> M_TRYWAIT vs M_TRY_WAIT because you have M_DONTWAIT/M_DONTBLOCK.
>
> -Alfred
I agree. Any
* Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001216 11:15] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Recently, there was a bikeshed on one of the lists dealing with
> whether or not to rename M_WAIT and M_DONTWAIT flags to something else
> that would "communicate more of the Right Thing" to developers
> consi
Hello,
Recently, there was a bikeshed on one of the lists dealing with
whether or not to rename M_WAIT and M_DONTWAIT flags to something else
that would "communicate more of the Right Thing" to developers
considering that for mbuf allocations, M_WAIT may return a NULL pointer
i
In message <001301c0601e$34cab880$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ari Suut
ari" writes:
> However, pipsecd only supports fixed keys and Kame seems more
> like the future way to go. Would it be possible to enhance ipfw & kame
> to work together better in same way (like having some kind of name for
> each tun
