Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:06:41 -0800 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "Hiten Pandya" <hiten@unixdaemons.com>, <FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mbuf flags cleanup proposal Message-ID: <122c01c2d9cb$9add0640$52557f42@errno.com> References: <20030221151007.GA60348@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Gang. I have a proposal to rename the current mbuf subsystem
> flag bits as follows:
>
> mbuf (sys/mbuf.h) flags:
>
> M_TRYWAIT -> MB_TRYWAIT
> M_DONTWAIT -> MB_DONTWAIT
>
> mbchain(9) (sys/mchain) flags:
>
> MB_MSYSTEM -> MBC_MSYSTEM
> MB_MUSER -> MBC_MUSER
> MB_MINLINE -> MBC_MINLINE
> MB_MZERO -> MBC_MZERO
> MB_MCUSTOM -> MBC_MCUSTOM
>
> This would also be beneficial for the various mbuf(9)
> and mbchain(9) routines. The following are the reasons
> why I think it should be done:
>
> - Less confusion.
> - Less mistakes in future.
>
> Any reasonable objections/comments?
This would mean breaking compatibility with other releases and other bsd
systems unless you left compatibility shims in place. The intent is to
enforce the right flags by checking them at runtime. This should eliminate
the "less mistakes in future" case. I don't consider less confusion a valid
argument; since these are all just #define's there is no compile-time
enforcement and unless you define the flags to have separate values you're
back where you were before. But if you make them separate values then
you've got nothing different than what's already proposed.
I suggest that this issue has been resolved and you should leave it alone.
Sam
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?122c01c2d9cb$9add0640$52557f42>