On 3/2/16 11:45 AM, will sanfilippo wrote:
I was hoping that the other mbuf API exposed would be enough for users and they would never need to call os_mbuf_free. I also think that when you unlink something from a list, setting its next pointer to NULL is just good practice. I was just trying to avoid the myriad bugs I have seen in the past by having both of these api exposed. But I am fine if folks want to keep it.
I think we want both functions, people who work with mbufs (me!) are very used to m_free() and m_freem(). I was debating whether we should call free_chain(), freem() instead, but decided free_chain() was clearer. I would be fine if people thought I was wrong, and wanted to rename it to freem().
Sterling
