From owner-freebsd-net  Sat Jul 29 10:32:42 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8284C37B85B
	for <net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e6THWTA10439;
	Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:32:28 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net>
Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Mbuf stuff.
Message-ID: <20000729103228.C21967@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <20000728225145.A21967@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007290437470.4317-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>; from bmilekic@dsuper.net on Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 04:42:40AM -0400
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

* Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> [000729 01:40] wrote:
> 
>    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.

Makes sense, I'll be testing and hopefully have it committed sunday/monday.

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message