From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 6 16:44:49 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 6 16:44:47 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail-relay.eunet.no (mail-relay.eunet.no [193.71.71.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2507337B401 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from login-1.eunet.no (login-1.eunet.no [193.75.110.2]) by mail-relay.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.9.3/GN) with ESMTP id BAA04665; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:44:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from localhost (mbendiks@localhost) by login-1.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA30753; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:44:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) X-Authentication-Warning: login-1.eunet.no: mbendiks owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:44:39 +0100 (CET) From: Marius Bendiksen To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: zero copy code review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Just about the only thing that may be considered is changing the > name of M_WAIT to something more appropriate, if it means so much to the > majority of people (honestly, I would find even doing this a waste of > time, but if lots of folks think it's worth educating kernel developers > by changing the name of a flag, then we might as well). This isn't much of an issue for me; however, I'd vote for changing the name. Not so much for "educating kernel developers", but rather for the sake of us being consistent and labelling things correctly. Marius To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message