On 2014/04/02 04:53, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!


Hi Adrian,


On 31 March 2014 19:20, Kevin Lo <ke...@freebsd.org> wrote:


Thank you John.  glebius@ suggests we don't need to have two absolutely
equal uma zones since most systems don't run UDP-Lite.
If practice shows that a differentiation at zone level between UDP and
UDP-Lite PCBs is important, then it could be done later.

Following up with a fourth version of the udp-lite patch.
http://people.freebsd.org/~kevlo/udplite.diff

On top of the previous versions, this:
         - removes a uma zone for udp-lite
         - udp_common_ctlinput() belongs under #ifdef INET
         - removes sysctl nodes for udp-lite.
         - bumps version and adds my copyright.
I've just briefly review this.

I recommend turning the places where you do this:

+ pcbinfo = (pr == IPPROTO_UDP) ? &V_udbinfo : &V_ulitecbinfo;

.. into some inline function which returns the correct pcbinfo based
on what 'pr' is.

That way if someone wants to add another derivative UDP handler they
won't have to go and change those conditionals to yet another set of
nested conditionals.

Same for:

+ pcblist = (pr == IPPROTO_UDP) ? &V_udb : &V_ulitecb;

Other than that, it looks good.

Thanks for the review.  I added two inline functions get_inpcbinfo() and
get_pcblist() which return the correct pcbinfo and pcblist respectively.

The current version of the patch is in the same location, thanks.



-a

    Kevin

_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to