Step 1.5 needs review

[Julian Elischer]

Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Brooks Davis wrote:
> 
>>> I suggest that we eventually replace:
>>>
>>>     VNET_ITERLOOP_BEGIN
>>>     stuff
>>>     VNET_ITERLOOP_END
>>>
>>>
>>> with (eventually)
>>>
>>>     FOREACH_VNET(vnet) {
>>>         stuff
>>>     }
>>>
>>> but that would require that the entire contents of "stuff"
>>> would appear in the diff.
>>
>> Thinking about it more, at a minimum, I think we should do:
>>     VNET_ITERLOOP_BEGIN
>>         stuff
>>     VNET_ITERLOOP_END
> 
> FWIW, I think we should make the change to FOREACH_VNET(vnet() { } 
> sooner rather than later -- especially if there's no semantic change 
> going on currently, now would be the time to do the indentation change.
> 
>>> I'm not sure I want to actually include the contents directly into 
>>> if.h or any other place.. I think keeping a separate vnet.h and 
>>> vinet.h seems ok to me.
>>
>> The #ifdef _KERNEL is a strong hint that it belongs in if_var.h if 
>> it's going to be included in another header (IMO, the vnet/vinet.h 
>> files aren't a good idea in the long term).
> 
> My views on this one are a bit mixed -- if the goal is to get, in the 
> medium term, to a case where we do explicit dereferencing rather than 
> macros, we may find we do need more globally visible types than we had 
> before, which may require us to have new globally included headers.  
> That said, in.h might be as good a place as any for global inet stuff, 
> and as long as we have piles of pointers rather than nested structs, the 
> type issue shouldn't get too bad.

thats' where vinet is, but what about vnet.. (non inet stuff)
I have it off if.h right now..

> 
> Robert N M Watson
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge