From owner-freebsd-current Sat Dec 22 2:36: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5606C37B41B for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 02:36:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA32754; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:35:45 +1100 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:35:50 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Chad David , Subject: Re: MEXTFREE In-Reply-To: <20011222050320.A77143@technokratis.com> Message-ID: <20011222213422.P7862-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Bosko Milekic wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:54:16AM -0700, Chad David wrote: > > MEXTFREE results in a call to _mext_free() which is only defined within > > subr_mbuf.c, and is not static. Should the prototype be moved into > > sys/mbuf.h, or should MEXTFREE be moved into subr_mbuf.c, or is it ok > > like this? > > It should stay like this. The easy (macro) case deals with only the > reference count issue. We only call the function if we really have to > free the object (i.e. ref count is dropped to zero). But clients that use MEXTFREE (if any) see the function call, so they need a prototype in scope. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message