From owner-freebsd-net Sat Dec 16 11:21:34 2000 From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 16 11:21:32 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7400137B400 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eBGJLU928778; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:21:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:21:30 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bosko Milekic Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing the names of some M_flags Message-ID: <20001216112130.Y19572@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from bmilekic@technokratis.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:16:31PM -0500 Sender: bright@fw.wintelcom.net Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Bosko Milekic [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