Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:53:38 GMT From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 137249 for review Message-ID: <200803091953.m29JrcdX063262@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=137249 Change 137249 by rwatson@rwatson_cinnamon on 2008/03/09 19:53:07 Remove two over-zealous comments. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/zcopybpf/src/sys/net/bpf.c#44 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/zcopybpf/src/sys/net/bpf.c#44 (text+ko) ==== @@ -1234,9 +1234,6 @@ * definition of commitment, for now, is whether or not a * buffer has been allocated or an interface attached, since * that's the point where things get tricky. - * - * XXXRW: This will need some refinement. Is checking both - * for buffers and interface binding redundant? */ switch (*(u_int *)addr) { case BPF_BUFMODE_BUFFER: @@ -1376,8 +1373,6 @@ * using zero-copy, then the user process must have registered * buffers by the time we get here. If not, return an error. * - * XXXRW: Could this be better abstracted? - * * XXXRW: There are locking issues here with multi-threaded use: what * if two threads try to set the interface at once? */
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200803091953.m29JrcdX063262>