Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:42:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mbuf stuff. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <20000728225145.A21967@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Ok, I've looked over it and it looks really good, the only thing
> that I wonder about is that perhaps we should pass a pointer to
> the mbuf instead of just 'arg' to the ext_free routine.
>
> I'm sort of undecided about this but wanted to bring it up for
> discussion.
>
> Basically, your call. :)
>
> > P.S.: Alfred: thanks.
>
> bah, you did all the work! :)
Well, that work is pretty much useless without feedback and support.
Given previous experiences I've had, your interest in this deffinately
deserves a thanks, at the least.
> -Alfred
Cheers,
Bosko.
--
Bosko Milekic * Voice/Mobile: 514.865.7738 * Pager: 514.921.0237
bmilekic@technokratis.com * http://www.technokratis.com/
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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000>