From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 18 17: 2:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7988715018 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:02:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA88661; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:02:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199911190102.RAA88661@apollo.backplane.com> To: Bosko Milekic Cc: David Greenman , remy@synx.com, julian@whistle.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf wait code (revisited) -- review? References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : I'm not sure if you have read the [original] patch that I had posted :about a week ago. Both the mbuf-wait and mbuf-cluster-wait routines (as well :as their "wakeup" routines) are just that, separate routines. The sleep :routines are called through the MGET, MGETHDR, and MCLALLOC macros, :depending of course whether the sleep is for an mbuf or mbuf cluster. : The place where wakeup() was originally called was also a routine :that I defined in kern/uipc_mbuf.c and that was invoked through the macros :that freed an mbuf or an mbuf chain (along with the mbuf clusters). : The plan is to fiddle with those _new_ routines. Sounds like a reasonable plan. I wonder if we should consider getting rid of the mbuf macros entirely and simply proceduralizing them. Then everything could be collected together into a single file. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message