Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:21:18 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Looney <jonlooney@gmail.com> Cc: "<freebsd-transport@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-transport@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Remove (struct tcpcb) from the API? Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokX%2BW=F-KNOwCPHm=9-Lp1JzQKS%2BUJo7N-dEEnH2z1sug@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADrOrmuG_GvqnenU8g9UXGN3uPDyMOapHm%2BX85iNa-RNHp1wUQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADrOrmuG_GvqnenU8g9UXGN3uPDyMOapHm%2BX85iNa-RNHp1wUQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wait, I thought we had xtcpcb or something to face userland? -a On 6 October 2016 at 12:05, Jonathan Looney <jonlooney@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > Currently, the (struct tcpcb) is part of the kernel API. This means that we > can only mess with the "spare" fields when we MFC things. > > Currently, things in userland *should* only be using the > 'net.inet.tcp.pcblist' to extract the (stuct tcpcb) list from the kernel. > We *should* be able to switch that sysctl so it only copies out the portion > of the (struct tcpcb) that is actually needed by userspace. The trick is > coming up with that list of fields, and then dealing with the fallout when > userspace things not from the base package break. > > Does anyone have an idea of whether things in the ports tree use this and > will break? And, does anyone have strong feelings one way or the other? > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-transport@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-transport > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-transport-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokX%2BW=F-KNOwCPHm=9-Lp1JzQKS%2BUJo7N-dEEnH2z1sug>