From owner-cvs-all  Fri Jul 30  2: 6:15 1999
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EF518151DE; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA29532;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:04:31 +1000
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:04:31 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199907300904.TAA29532@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, des@flood.ping.uio.no
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.c
Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org,
	green@FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>> > > > >   8 -> NBBy
>> > > > "number of bits by byte"?
>> > > Yep, that's exactly what it is. NBBY is much preferred to hardcoding 8 :)
>> > BITS_PER_BYTE is much preferred to NBBY.
>> You mean "Standard C's CHAR_BIT is much preferred to NBBy" when the number
>> of bits in a byte is actually wanted.
>
>Yes, but that's not what's wanted here. Or rather, what's wanted here
>is the number of bits per *network* byte.

That's why I said "when the number of bts in a byte is actually wanted".
Strangely enough, it is actually wanted in the code changed by the commit
(which involves a bitmap implemented using an array of unsigned values).
This has nothing to do with network bytes.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message