From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 9 21:37:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D574316A4CE; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:37:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E12143D31; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:37:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i99LbAop009137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:37:11 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i99LbAZS009136; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:37:10 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:37:10 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Sam Leffler Message-ID: <20041009213710.GB8922@cell.sick.ru> References: <200410091325.i99DPK00097724@repoman.freebsd.org> <4168009A.303@errno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4168009A.303@errno.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf2.c src/share/man/man9 mbuf_tags.9 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:37:19 -0000 On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 08:15:38AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: S> I don't recall your showing me the change to remove m_tag_free in S> mbuf.h. These change the semantics of calling m_tag_free--before they S> called the method pointer, but now they explicitly call the static S> function which is typically not what is desired. Your original request S> was solely to expose the _m_tag_free function so that code could access S> it; but you've done far more than that with this commit. I believe you S> should revert the API change. Sam, I have searched all src/sys for m_tag_free() users. All of them call m_tag_free() on an mtag that was just allocated several lines before. This means, that nothing have changed for them. Yes, I have changed the API, but nothing is affected. And it is important, that now API is in accordance with OpenBSD's API, from where mtags came from. This will make porting of things easier. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE