* Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011116 18:02] wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> [..]
> > What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location
> > for those things, defined in a "per protocol family" manner.
> > 
> > Luigi has already tried this scheme by defining a 
> > dummynet specific mbuf type that can  be prepended to the 
> > front of packets. What I suggest is to extend this
> > to defining a MT_PROTOSTORAGE. (or similar) mbuf type
> > that generic networking code is educated to ignore,
> > and that protocols can use to pass packet-specific state
> > information from one place to another.
> Uhh.. no thanks.  Whatever you do, do *NOT* abuse the mbuf system
> for this.  We went to a lot of trouble (well, Garrett specifically)
> to rid the stacks of this obscenity.  Do *NOT* generalize it and undo
> it.  MT_DUMMYNET must die, not be propagated elsewhere.
> If you want to have some general storage mechnaism, do *not* use mbufs
> for it.


or just fix the code to pass this around as an extra paramter.

-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to