From owner-freebsd-net Wed Oct 24 19:14:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8D637B403 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f9P2E4m50377; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200110250214.f9P2E4m50377@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: rizzo@aciri.org, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: struct ifnet changes In-Reply-To: <200110250134.f9P1YJt18085@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <200110250134.f9P1YJt18085@prism.flugsvamp.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < 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