Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: rizzo@aciri.org, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: struct ifnet changes Message-ID: <200110250214.f9P2E4m50377@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110250134.f9P1YJt18085@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-stable/20011024171142.A48147@iguana.aciri.org> <200110250134.f9P1YJt18085@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:34:19 -0500 (CDT), Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> said: > - You mention moving if_flags to the first element, is there any code > that assumes that if_softc is the first element in the ifnet? Putting > at the start of the second cache line might be another option. There shouldn't be; if_softc is a recent invention, and should by rights be unnecessary. Put more precisely: assert(ifp->if_softc == ifp); The people who wanted if_softc are the same ones who were arguing against this softc layout restriction, so it's quite unlikely that there would be anyone depending on &ifp->if_softc == (void **)ifp. -GAWollman 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?200110250214.f9P2E4m50377>