Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:21:30 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing the names of some M_flags Message-ID: <20001216112130.Y19572@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012161404350.33915-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>; from bmilekic@technokratis.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:16:31PM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012161404350.33915-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> [001216 11:15] wrote: > > Hello, > > Recently, there was a bikeshed on one of the lists dealing with > whether or not to rename M_WAIT and M_DONTWAIT flags to something else > that would "communicate more of the Right Thing" to developers > considering that for mbuf allocations, M_WAIT may return a NULL pointer > in the case where all mbuf resources are depleted and mbuf_wait time has > already been spent waiting. > > The proposed flag names were/are: > > M_WAIT --> M_TRY_WAIT > M_DONTWAIT --> M_DONTBLOCK > I think M_DONTWAIT is fine as it was, and M_TRYWAIT instead of M_TRY_WAIT. Leaving it as M_DONTWAIT should reduce the delta by quite a bit and M_TRYWAIT vs M_TRY_WAIT because you have M_DONTWAIT/M_DONTBLOCK. -Alfred 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?20001216112130.Y19572>