Well I don't care exactly how we do it but we need to figure out a way of storing such metadata along with packets. and it needs to be queueable along with the packets.. (sounds like an mbuf to me but if you have a better idea.....) (and anyhow Garrett got rid of the 'static' uses of mbufs, not 'travelling' 'per packet' uses..)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Peter Wemm 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. > > Cheers, > -Peter > -- > Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
