Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:10:02 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: new mbuf flag bit needed Message-ID: <20020815121002.D30190@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208151148090.27476-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:49:41AM -0700 References: <20020815113824.B30190@iguana.icir.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208151148090.27476-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: ... > > The problem with protocol-specific bits is that you'll end up > > overloading them, and once you pass the packets to a multi-protocol > > module (such as netgraph, or ipfw2) you are in trouble. ... > protocols should not expect to store flags there on packets that cross a > protocol boundary. yesh but then you rely on those protocols cleaning up the flags after they are done with it. Which does not always happen in real life, e.g. one of the comments to motivate the use of M_PROTO1 is that "somewhere mbuf headers are not properly initialized and rcvif might contain junk" > it would be for passing state around within a single protocol family.. > such as you suggest. So, i do _not_ want a protocol-specific bit because the info i need is not protocol-specific and goes to a non-protocol-specific module. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020815121002.D30190>