From owner-freebsd-net Fri Nov 16 17:20:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E2737B41D; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:20:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15938; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:11:39 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Peter Wemm , Julian Elischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack. In-Reply-To: <20011116170214.A86121@iguana.aciri.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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