Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:28:40 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd 3.0 current fails ipfilter 3.2b8 build (fwd) Message-ID: <3446B138.42877E5C@whistle.com> References: <199710170000.KAA22494@plum.cyber.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Darren Reed wrote: > Well, I just had a look at net/if.h & net/if_var.h for -current and it > appears as if someone has really created a good ol' mess in there. > (Sort of inline with what the rumour mill is saying about FreeBSD > networking code...) ah fightin' words ;-) I'm bowing out, Iagree there's a mess there, but hopefully it's because it's in transition. > > In if.h, "struct ifnet" is gone, but if_var.h is included if KERNEL is > defined. However, all the #define's for the if_flags are still in if.h. I think that's because they are needed externally. the flags word is passed around independantly of the ifnet. (e.g. through the API) > If someone feels the need to change something, please ensure that the > structs from if_var.h get into if.h by if if.h is included, no matter > what. > > Cripes, not even Solaris2 is this brain dead. In the new inet include > directory, they have a similar sort of thing, but they did it right. > Some files contain just extern's whilst others contain structures and > externs. > > Might I suggest that this is the way to go ? I point the finger directly at garrett. If he says so it can happen. > > Structures defined in .h files, whilst maybe used in the kernel, are > not always used only in that fashion. If there are changes made to > them, then it should not harm user code if dependencies can be > correctly determined. we are trying to remove all extrernal references to such structures. > > Putting things into different .h files doesn't stop people from using > what you think are "kernel private" in other ways, it just makes them > angry and annoyed that something has changed (for no good reason) and > they now must deal with it. If something like the name for "loif" had > moved and changed, then you'd be quite right with the assertion of it > being "kernel private", etc. I think the problem is that you are seeing a half finished transition. But I understand your frustration. > > Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3446B138.42877E5C>