Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:39 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@vicor-nb.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111161707290.6632-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20011116170214.A86121@iguana.aciri.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
ok, so how would you envision it? example? Adding fields to the pkthdr? (and flags to say what they are used for). A pointer to route, (maybe the route in ip_forward() can be dynamically allocated on the stack, I'm not sure yet) A pointer to a sockaddr, with a flag to say if it's for 'fwd' use or 'xmit' use. (but they may both be needed together).. can we guarantee that these will be freed correctly when the mbuf is freed? On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > so far there hasn't been a lot of suggestion as to how the goal can be > > achieved however.. > > i actually suggested one i.e. have explicit pointers > to metadata area(s) in the pkthdr. I think you forget the > most fundamental feature which is performance. > This is way more important than flexibility i think. > > > things it should be: > > > > 1/ flexible > > 2/ queueable > > 3/ transparent to 3rd party code that doesn't know about it. > > cheers > luigi > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0111161707290.6632-100000>