Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:32:28 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mbuf stuff. Message-ID: <20000729103228.C21967@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>; from bmilekic@dsuper.net on Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 04:42:40AM -0400 References: <20000728225145.A21967@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> [000729 01:40] wrote: > > Leaving it as void is cleaner as an interface as it doesn't force other > layers to have to deal with struct mbufs, and, also, if you want to pass > the mbuf, nothing stops you from casting the args as an mbuf struct > pointer and passing up the mbuf struct's base address. So I think that > more flexibility is better in this sense. Makes sense, I'll be testing and hopefully have it committed sunday/monday. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000729103228.C21967>