moving sockbuf in to its own header

[Robert Watson]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Kip Macy wrote:

> Actually, I'd like to re-factor multiple parts of socketvar in to separate 
> files.
>
> Please provide feedback on the following:
>
> http://www.fsmware.com/socketvar_refactor.diff

This seems like a fairly disruptive change from the perpective of managing 
future MFCs, and likewise makes it quite a bit harder to diff branches and 
make sure things haven't been missed.  That said, I'm not entirely opposed to 
it, since I think this decomposition is a fairly reasonable one.  Do make sure 
you've done a complete make universe to hit all the user consumers, such as 
netstat, etc, that grub around in the kernel parts and make sure there are no 
surprises.  A few comments:

- Please propagate the copyright/license from socketvar.h to all derived new
   files.
- You seem to have a lot of extra blank lines -- generally speaking, at most
   one blank line between pieces of code/comments/etc is required.
- The new include files seem not to have forward declarations of the structs
   referenced from other structures, so in practice you may find that including
   one requires including the others.  Fixing this is easy and, at the very
   least, non-harmful.  It would also lay the way towards not doing nested
   includes of various includes from socketvar.h in the future.
- One of the elements of the BSD style(9) I don't like is the tab between
   "struct" and "structname" for fields in older structures.  Perhaps this is
   why I notice that it isn't there in the new struct sockbuf line in struct
   socket, and likewise xsockbuf in xsocket :-)

If you do make this change, check in with Peter about whether we now prefer 
the use of svn copy.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge

>
> Thanks,
> Kip
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Kip Macy <kmacy at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> TOE drivers  need to be able to directly enqueue data in to a socket
>> buffer and thus benefit from having knowledge of sockbuf internals.
>> However, there is no need for them to know about other socket
>> definitions. Thus I would like to move sockbuf and accompanying
>> definitions to their own header.
>>
>> This is a fairly straightforward change so I don't really see the need
>> to wait more than a few days for feedback:
>>
>> http://www.fsmware.com/sockbuf.h.diff
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>