From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Feb 21 9: 6:44 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B975137B401 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:06:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5AA43F85 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:06:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h1LH6fnN051641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:06:41 -0800 (PST)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <122c01c2d9cb$9add0640$52557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: "Hiten Pandya" , References: <20030221151007.GA60348@unixdaemons.com> Subject: Re: Mbuf flags cleanup proposal Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:06:41 -0800 Organization: Errno Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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