From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 00:33:23 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48279511 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11DCE1A6F for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id tp5so1357640ieb.5 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=mqgPCBtc6Fj8VwcT/oeN2Ls+r46ZRnZ4VlM3kr4CjBM=; b=IfDZ0kRXmLGqc4/Gr+wcwD7tKXHleDcPsYU81luDdvxzIiDjkE8Sf65Hizg3sgcRyd tCmJgFCcKSv54mSMyJfB1MAXKOH3X/7k/c8vaLdeXQNmhzJ+G/Ux+rGFhfDSy38i/JF6 7FBE6zFahzq6rez3R5agUkvUhSoOMk6asnXyaym9g6h9OYvlgoKVXFNBhWegK/EUuU2w NdVYbMU8I2PbdFxN8O8Fj7QskZfp+vCdNarIQGYLZuZt72yM1BSxd0d1Sv7gyYzuCAup PjCGcUMuzaQcztRh62v1FO6Gqsy3vvvFTH5T4zd5k+vUCJpOHHTT1odFDEkk4GwjRKfc D/+g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.50.70 with SMTP id a6mr5684153igo.1.1390955602379; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: jdavidlists@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.170.8 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140128234136.GJ13704@funkthat.com> References: <20140128002826.GU13704@funkthat.com> <1415339672.17282775.1390872779067.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <20140128021450.GY13704@funkthat.com> <20140128234136.GJ13704@funkthat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:33:22 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GeJ3Uavi6pnu4OAknw5gfAvbplQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE? From: J David To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:33:23 -0000 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > It might be better to move most of m_getm's docs under m_getm2, and > document that m_getm is just m_getm2 w/ M_PKTHDR flag set. > > Could you also document that only M_PKTHDR and M_EOR are valid > flags for m_getm2? OK, try this: http://pastebin.com/39kwExsc > You are correct.. the problem is that the MLINK isn't setup in the > Makefile, so: > $ man m_append > No manual entry for m_append Oh drat, I just saw another one of those the other day and didn't make a note of it. Oh yeah, it's uma_zalloc_arg. Thanks, shell history! > It's common to use a macro when the change isn't complicated, i.e. > just adding a flag... Sure, it's a little unsettling that the man page is explicitly separated into macros and functions and this macro is the second entry in under "The functions are:." It's like seeing a library book shelved in the wrong section. Probably m_getm was a function for a long time and got turned into a macro when m_getm2 was born. The documentation was either not updated or intentionally left as-is. Since I didn't know which was the case, I've left it where it is for now. Thanks!