Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 11:45:39 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r248417 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <51459ED3.4040304@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130317093339.GT48089@FreeBSD.org> References: <201303170739.r2H7djP1098888@svn.freebsd.org> <51458691.4090107@freebsd.org> <20130317093339.GT48089@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17.03.2013 10:33, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:02:09AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > A> On 17.03.2013 08:39, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > A> > Author: glebius > A> > Date: Sun Mar 17 07:39:45 2013 > A> > New Revision: 248417 > A> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/248417 > A> > > A> > Log: > A> > Add MEXT_ALIGN() macro, similar to M_ALIGN() and MH_ALIGN(), but for > A> > mbufs with external buffer. > A> > A> While you are cleaning up the mbuf usage wouldn't it make sense to remove > A> these macros, instead of adding new ones, and use m_align() which handles > A> all these cases internally? > > I'm thinking about this. Maybe it is worth to request tail alignment as > a flag to the allocating function itself? IMHO that would overload the allocation function(s). The explicit step of doing m_align() for those who need it is fine and alerts the reader of what is going on. I'm all for simplification and unification, on the other hand it shouldn't be taken too far creating new complexity on the other side. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51459ED3.4040304>