From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 19 02:18:49 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 8B98716A4CE; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7CA43D53; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:18:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86])i4J9Hk5v018670; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:46 +1000 Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) i4J9Hd2O001022; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:41 +1000 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:41 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Gleb Smirnoff In-Reply-To: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru> Message-ID: <20040519191112.Q14183@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: darrenr@freebsd.org cc: mlaier@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:18:49 -0000 On Tue, 18 May 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > ... > 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. It's not quite that bad. It doesn't need a complete struct sockaddr_in typem so it doesn't require including netinet/in.h. Bruce