From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 18 12:02:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B755B16A4CE; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63D443E5B; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4IIDFvw069429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:16 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id i4IIDENA069428; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:15 +0400 (MSD) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:14 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: darrenr@freebsd.org, mlaier@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: mbuf.h rev 1.142 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:02:43 -0000 Dear sirs, what was the reason for moving ip_claim_next_hop() from ip_var.h to mbuf.h? As far as I understand mbuf.h contains declarations to mbuf interface, which is lower than IP protocol, or sockets. m_claim_next_hop() is not really a pure mbuf function, while all other functions in mbuf.h are. After rev 1.142 including mbuf.h requires including of netinet/in.h, and this is not logically correct. Can you show me reason for this mixing of interface layers? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE