From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jan 25 21:18:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A7F14D50 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:18:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA08275; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:18:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:18:06 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200001260518.VAA08275@apollo.backplane.com> To: Brett Glass Cc: Warner Losh , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Merged patches References: <4.2.2.20000125133808.019fd6a0@localhost> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org : :P.S. -- In any event, the even greater advantage of using switches :is an enhanced ability to cover all cases and to verify code :correctness (and completeness) by inspection. If one can do this :AND improve performance, it's a serious win. No. There is a time and place for the use of a switch statement to cover all your bases, but a *flags* field is *NOT* it. You are obviously not willing to listen to reason. The plain fact of the matter is that even if you were given the benefit of the doubt, the performance improvement would be so miniscule that it would not be measureable. Making these sorts of changes to perfectly good, working, and well tested code is a great way to screw up said code. We are not going to improve the TCP stack by wasting time on non-productive changes. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message