From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu May  9 09:05:50 1996
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA19033
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 1996 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sierra.zyzzyva.com (ppp0.zyzzyva.com [198.183.2.50])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA19012
          Thu, 9 May 1996 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zyzzyva.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sierra.zyzzyva.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id LAA24496; Thu, 9 May 1996 11:05:01 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199605091605.LAA24496@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: davidg@root.com
cc: brian@mediacity.com, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith),
        et-users@netrail.net, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org,
        current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Continued MBUF problem with ET V.35 card 
In-reply-to: davidg's message of Thu, 09 May 1996 05:18:15 -0700.
         <199605091218.FAA02021@Root.COM> 
X-uri: http://www.zyzzyva.com/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 11:05:00 -0500
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> Hit Dennis on the head and get him to admit that it's his drivers 8)
> >
> >Some months ago, I worked with Dennis to track down the mbuf leak
> >problem.  The leak was in FreeBSD code, not his driver.
> 
>    Yes, and for the record this was caused by a small change to the MGET/MFREE
> macros. We used to have a private pool of mbufs to optimize performance, but
> this was found to conflict with the allocation-type tracking in malloc() and
> lead to system instabilities. By reverting the macros back to their originals,
> the code in Dennis's driver that allocated and freed mbufs was still sticking
> them in this private pool - one the rest of the system didn't know about, and
> thus the "leak".
>    There have been no changes to the mbuf allocation code since then.
> 
> -DG

Could someone help me with version numbers in these changes?

I'm finding that the problem exists in 2.1.0 and -stable.
What version was changed?
What version was reverted?
In which branch is this fixed?

This discussion is very helpful. Please expand.