Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:00:22 -0700
From:      Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To:        Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
Cc:        src-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net80211 ieee80211_node.c
Message-ID:  <20040405000022.GX26131@elvis.mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040403143811.H11430@root.org>
References:  <20040402230239.23FA616A4F4@hub.freebsd.org> <20040403143811.H11430@root.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> [040403 13:39] wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Sam Leffler wrote:
> > sam         2004/04/02 15:02:24 PST
> >
> >   FreeBSD src repository
> >
> >   Modified files:
> >     sys/net80211         ieee80211_node.c
> >   Log:
> >   replace explicit malloc/free with MALLOC/FREE for portability
> >
> >   Obtained from:  madwifi
> >
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.17      +5 -3      src/sys/net80211/ieee80211_node.c
> 
> Strange, sys/malloc.h says these are deprecated:
> 
> /*
>  * Deprecated macro versions of not-quite-malloc() and free().
>  */
> #define MALLOC(space, cast, size, type, flags) \
>         ((space) = (cast)malloc((u_long)(size), (type), (flags)))
> #define FREE(addr, type) free((addr), (type))

They were the prefered mechanism because of the formerly available
macros that would evaluate the malloc bucket to pull-from/release-to
in several cycles via constant folding.

In fact I still think the macros are a decent idea because we
might later find a cool optimization we can do via macros.



-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
- Research Engineering Development Inc.
- email: bright@mu.org cell: 408-480-4684



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040405000022.GX26131>