Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:14 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> To: darrenr@freebsd.org, mlaier@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: mbuf.h rev 1.142 Message-ID: <20040518181314.GA69389@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear sirs, what was the reason for moving ip_claim_next_hop() from ip_var.h to mbuf.h? As far as I understand mbuf.h contains declarations to mbuf interface, which is lower than IP protocol, or sockets. m_claim_next_hop() is not really a pure mbuf function, while all other functions in mbuf.h are. After rev 1.142 including mbuf.h requires including of netinet/in.h, and this is not logically correct. Can you show me reason for this mixing of interface layers? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040518181314.GA69389>