Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf usage for an idle machine Message-ID: <200308271653.h7RGr9BX013784@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030827113916.25213C-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <20030827030314.GJ40033@pixies.tirloni.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030827113916.25213C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT), Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> said: > There are a number of situations in which the mbuf allocator is used to > allocate non-mbufs -- for example, we use mbufs to hold IP fragment > queues, as well as some static packet prototype mbufs, socket options, > etc. You're a few years out of date on that one. Socket options should not be held in mbufs (unless something is broken at the protocol level). I made a sweep a few years back and managed to eliminate most misues of mbufs in the network stack. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200308271653.h7RGr9BX013784>