From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed May 23 23:11:16 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01FAEEBCEA; Wed, 23 May 2018 23:11:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 150A983CFE; Wed, 23 May 2018 23:11:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (ralph.baldwin.cx [66.234.199.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: jhb) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C48FABBC1; Wed, 23 May 2018 23:11:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Matt Macy Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r334104 - in head/sys: netinet sys Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 11:52:23 -0700 Message-ID: <2281830.zrSQodBeDb@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (FreeBSD/11.1-STABLE; KDE/4.14.30; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <201805231700.w4NH05hs047395@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201805231700.w4NH05hs047395@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 23:11:16 -0000 On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 05:00:05 PM Matt Macy wrote: > Author: mmacy > Date: Wed May 23 17:00:05 2018 > New Revision: 334104 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334104 > > Log: > epoch: allow for conditionally asserting that the epoch context fields > are unused by zeroing on INVARIANTS builds Is M_ZERO really so bad that you need to make it conditional? I would probably have preferred something like 'M_ZERO_INVARIANTS' instead perhaps (or M_ZERO_EPOCH) that only controls M_ZERO and is still or'd with M_WAITOK or M_NOWAIT. -- John Baldwin