[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:23 -0500:
something like the attached patch? does not incude the ib and gm changes..
Looks good to me (the cleanups too :)). Can you copy the tcp
implementation into ib and gm too, just the free()? Then we won't
have a broken tree until somebody
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:23 -0500:
something like the attached patch? does not incude the ib and gm changes..
Looks good to me (the cleanups too :)). Can you copy the tcp
implementation into ib and gm too, just the free()? Then we won't
have a
Hi guys,
Sam and I raised this question for the following reason (motivated during the
discussion of
BMI-MX's design with Scott)
Suppose a BMI method wants to keep around a pre-allocated pool of
unexpected buffers, it seems wasteful to copy them into a user buffer and
then free it again.
So we
On Aug 21, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:32 -0500:
Sam and I raised this question for the following reason (motivated
during the discussion of
BMI-MX's design with Scott)
Suppose a BMI method wants to keep around a pre-allocated pool of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:44 -0500:
The BMI_testeunexpected call returns a list of BMI_unexpected_info
structs. Each of these has a buffer that's been allocated by the bmi
method internally. It looks like that buffer gets freed in
server_state_machine_complete
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:44 -0500:
The BMI_testeunexpected call returns a list of BMI_unexpected_info
structs. Each of these has a buffer that's been allocated by the bmi
method internally. It looks like that buffer gets
