In this case, what do mbufs have to do with files? I am very confused.
> I was assuming that the main objection to allocating mbufs for duration of > file open, > rather than allocating per transfer, this could result in a much higher > number of mbufs > being in use concurrently. I cannot see any other downside (which may be > due to my > not understanding a lot of stuff - I last wrote this level of stuff for > Unix in the 1980's). > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 14:41, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andrew Grillet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > These days we are not so short of memory - would it not be possible to > > > allocate an mbuf (or two for double-buffered) for each file > > > when opened, and free when closed? > > > > What does this have to do with files?? > >
