From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 26 1: 2:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7762437B401 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:02:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f1Q90Am29065; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:00:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:00:10 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: "Kenneth D. Merry" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sbufs in userland Message-ID: <20010226010010.Z8663@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010226003319.A19994@panzer.kdm.org> <18974.983175906@critter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <18974.983175906@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 09:25:06AM +0100 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Poul-Henning Kamp [010226 00:25] wrote: > In message <20010226003319.A19994@panzer.kdm.org>, "Kenneth D. Merry" writes: > > >1. Should we put sbufs in userland? > > Yes. > > >2. If we do put sbufs in userland, what is the best way to do it? > > There are three different ways I can think of: > > I think that libsbuf makes sense. Since sbuf was your idea, I'm wondering why you didn't make the allocation/init of sbufs not possibly require knowledge of the sbuf internal layout. Meaning sbuf_new() should return a struct sbuf * such that one can pass NULL in and get a pointer back without having to know the sbuf internals. Is it too late, impossible or not feasable to fix this? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message