Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:53:00 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal to clarify mbuf handling rules Message-ID: <200008301953.aa98962@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:39:35 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008291843410.9530-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If we decide to go with the above proposal, there can be one macro to > set perms, and it can be of course used to remove a bit as well. There > can also be two "wrapper" macros that will essentially either call the > reference count increment macro and set RDONLY if it becomes > 1 or call > the reference count decrement macro and unset RDONLY if it becomes > exactly 1. The wrapper macros are only to be called for those wishing > this specific behavior. We can have a number of such macros, if we judge > them to be useful, based on the different possibilities that you listed > at the beginning of this Email. Personally, I'd go for the simplest option, to just add a M_RDONLY flag to the m_flags and use the three condition check for writability. (That way we can even make normal mbuf read only if we want to - not that that is necessarily an advantage ;-) I guess we could impliment it either way and use macros so it is easy to change later. David. 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? <200008301953.aa98962>