On 2002-10-15 00:12, Nicolas Christin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > > Would people be open to renaming the 'MSIZE' kernel option to something
> > > more specific such as 'MBUF_SIZE' or 'MBUFSIZE'? Using 'MSIZE' can
> >
> > No.
> >
> > MSIZE is a tr
Note: I'm just a lurker here, but thought I'd give my 2 cents on this
discussion as well.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > Would people be open to renaming the 'MSIZE' kernel option to something
> > more specific such as 'MBUF_SIZE' or 'MBUFSIZE'? Using 'MSIZE' can
>
> No.
>
>
Not that my opinion really holds much weight with you guys but for what
it's worth, I think the change would be gratuitist.
1. MSIZE has been around forever.
2. The argument that sys/sys/mbuf.h should have MSIZE removed/changed
because some other code may use it is fallacious. The "other code"
John Baldwin writes:
> Would people be open to renaming the 'MSIZE' kernel option to something
> more specific such as 'MBUF_SIZE' or 'MBUFSIZE'? Using 'MSIZE' can
No.
MSIZE is a traditional BSDism. Everybody else still uses it.
Even AIX and MacOS. I really don't like the idea of changing
go for it..
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> Would people be open to renaming the 'MSIZE' kernel option to something
> more specific such as 'MBUF_SIZE' or 'MBUFSIZE'? Using 'MSIZE' can
> break other places in the kernel. For example, ISA device ivars have
> an ivar for the size of
