Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:43:27 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Trivial mbuf patch for review. Message-ID: <5835.1032374607@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:18:28 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209181015070.4727-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209181015070.4727-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, Jul ian Elischer writes: > > >On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > >a fair idea.. >I think m_length could be a maco or an inline.... >It's hardly worth a function call.. On the other hand, as Bruce would probably put it: Only broken code which fails to keep properly track of lengths needs to all m_length() or m_fixhdr() in the first place. As I said in other email: I don't think there is a performance case to be made for inline, and macros are just plain ugly. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5835.1032374607>