Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:17:43 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), julian@whistle.com, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP kernels... how many processes can be in ? Message-ID: <199807280617.XAA01083@antipodes.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:10:10 %2B0200." <199807280410.GAA04868@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Given that what you're trying to do is pass state with the packet(s) > > that you're putting onto the queue, rather than associate state with a > > particular quantum of execution in the kernel space, wouldn't it make > > more sense to queue a non-IP control packet to pass your state around? > > queueing is no problem, the problem is doing things without calling > interfaces for the functions involved in the process or the packet > structure. I presume you mean "changing" rather than "calling". And this is what I mean; you effectively add extra arguments to the functions in question by putting them into an mbuf rather than on the stack. It also means that you can decouple the call from the invocation, if that's any use. > In both cases the reason not to change current interfaces is that they > are widely used both in source code and documentation and you never > know if you fixed all places. Understood. 8( -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807280617.XAA01083>