On 23/02/18(Fri) 04:08, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> [2018-02-21 09:37]:
> > On 21/02/18(Wed) 02:37, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > I'd suggest moving the pool allocation and the function in net/pf*.c
> > and only have a function call under #if NPF > 0.
> worth discussing, but imo that part doesn't really have all that much
> to do with pf.

It is only used by pf(4).  All the code is under #if NPF > 0, so it *is*
related to PF.  We have been reducing the #ifdef maze through the years
for maintainability reasons.  I don't see the point for reintroducing
them for taste.

> > I'd suggest defining your own structure containing a timeout and a mbuf
> > pointer instead of abusing ph_cookie.  Since you're already allocating
> > something it doesn't matter much and you're code won't be broken by
> > a future refactoring.
> dlg pointed me to ph_cookie, I was about to use my own structure.
> "ph_cookie is for exactly that"

ph_cookie is not for that.  ph_cookie is a left-over because the wifi
stack abused `rcvif' to attach a node to management frames.  The problem
about using ph_cookie all over the place is that you don't know who owns
it.  Is it the driver like in wireless case?  Is it pf(4) like in your
case?  Is it a subsystem like in pipex case?

If you can easily avoid using ph_cookie, then please do it.  Otherwise
you're putting maintenance burden by writing fragile code that will
subtly break when somebody will start using ph_cookie for something else.

Reply via email to