Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:07:02 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Net <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mbuf changes Message-ID: <9AD4923A-72AE-4FE3-A869-3AF8ECBF17E2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1010021627230.49031@fledge.watson.org> References: <4C9DA26D.7000309@freebsd.org> <AANLkTim7oRyVYY3frn7=cn4Et8Acbcq9cXja_bR6YWvP@mail.gmail.com> <4CA51024.8020307@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1010021627230.49031@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Oct 2010, at 16:29, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> On 9/30/10 10:49 AM, Ryan Stone wrote: >>> It's not a big thing but it would be nice to replace the m_next and m_nextpkt fields with queue.h macros. >> funny, I've never even thought of that.. > > I have, and it's a massive change touching code all over the kernel in vast quantities. While in principle it's a good idea (consistently avoid hand-crafted linked lists), it's something I'd discourage on the basis that it probably won't significant reduce the kernel bug count, but will make it even harder for vendors with large local changes to the network stack to keep up. I think it could also increase the kernel bug count. Unfortunately, we can't do this incrementally. > (We might consider revisiting the proposal for 10.0, perhaps? I'd rather we burnt the cycles on fleshing out network stack virtualization more thoroughly for 9.x though.) I agree that this doesn't bring us a great improvement for the amount of work that's required. Regards, -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9AD4923A-72AE-4FE3-A869-3AF8ECBF17E2>