Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:46:16 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, luigi@FreeBSD.ORG, remy@boostworks.com, csg@waterspout.com, pavel@alum.mit.edu, nsayer@sftw.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal for ethernet, bridging, netgraph Message-ID: <390690B8.4487EB71@elischer.org> References: <200004260229.TAA56138@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> Louis A. Mamakos writes:
> >
> > Now that mbufs are 256 bytes long, is this getting to be too much data
> > to stick on the kernel stack? It seems like it's not a problem now, but
> > this code is now going to be invoked deeper in the stack than before.
> >
> > If this code is running at splnet(), then it ought to be safe to just
> > have a static mbuf laying about for this purpose, rather than allocating
> > a local on the kernel stack.
>
> Good point.. we could just use a struct m_hdr.. and in any case
> it should be able to be a static variable.. we're at splnet().
i think it is bad style to do a static one..
we cannot know what will happen WRT SMP in the near future and we are
setting ourselves up for future problems if we do that. I think we could
get away with a m_hdr.
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ julian@elischer.org
( OZ ) World tour 2000
---> X_.---._/ presently in: Perth
v
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?390690B8.4487EB71>