Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net>
To:        "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: mbuf re-write(s): v 0.2: request-for-comments
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006281943470.3355-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
In-Reply-To: <20000628154740.A53117@panzer.kdm.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:

> FWIW, I'm in favor of a pointer argument as well.  The way I implemented it
> was actually with a third argument, instead of changing the int to void.
> i.e.:

[...]

> I don't feel too strongly about it either way -- I suppose it's about the
> same amount of work to port older code.  (I just put an ifdef in the
> sendfile code, which doesn't use the third argument in my tree.)

	The u_int is really unnecessary. If the caller needs more important
  information, he can pass anything he likes, including a data structure,
  or even a pointer to the mbuf. So this information can be extracted in
  either case.

> 
> Ken
> -- 
> Kenneth Merry
> ken@kdm.org
> 
> 


--
 Bosko Milekic  *  Voice/Mobile: 514.865.7738  *  Pager: 514.921.0237
    bmilekic@technokratis.com  *  http://www.technokratis.com/




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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006281943470.3355-100000>