From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 21 19:18:42 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3924137B401 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:18:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB9D43F18 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:18:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arr@watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0M3IXP3077920 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:18:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from arr@watson.org) Received: from localhost (arr@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with SMTP id h0M3IXOZ077917 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:18:33 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: arr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:18:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: M_ flags summary. In-Reply-To: <20030122023246.GP42333@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I've already responded to Alfred regarding this and he sort of nod'd his head to this question/thought... (and I also should say that I've not been around BSD long enough or been around recently to say anything .. but.. :)) has anyone emailed the bsd-api list to see if this is some change that is/should be made across the board? I know I corrected a few various pieces in the sys/ code that had the incorrect define being used (despite the correct value) and that some of what I fixed was in KAME code (iirc) which I assume to be a bsd-wide deal. Nevertheless, ignore me if Im out of the loop. Cheers, Andrew On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Alfred Perlstein wrote: :First I would like to apologize for my responses, I should have :tried to maintian more of a professional attitude and approach. :The fact of the matter is that everyone that has been involved I :respect greatly and would hate to have soured what should have been :a good working relationship. : :Moving along, it seems that we have the primary caretakers of the :allocation subsystems and cvs (bmilekic, jeff, peter) mostly in :favor of this change or at least moving forward rather than backward :on the issue. : :We have binary compatibility because the WAIT "flag" was actually :zero and that hasn't changed. Remeber, only 5 files have changed :md5s from LINT, one has a __DATE__ tag in it and the other is vers.o, :the rest were because of string changes I made. : :Peter has made a suggestion that we ressurect the WAIT "flags" for :KLD_MODULES. I'm do not object to it, but I do not think it's :needed. : :Reasons for not bringing back or changing the flags: : 1) we'll go back to having the same problems. : 2) if we change the 0'd flag to 0x2 then we: : waste a bit and : have a failure case where the default was fine. : 3) garbage in cvs. : :Personally I would like to see M_NOWAIT defined in a single place :rather than in both malloc.h and mbuf.h, anyone have a suggestion :for that? : :-- :-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] :'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," : start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' : :To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org :with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message : -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message