moving sockbuf in to its own header
kip.macy at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 08:57:25 UTC 2008
Thanks for the follow-up.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Kip Macy wrote:
>> Actually, I'd like to re-factor multiple parts of socketvar in to separate
>> Please provide feedback on the following:
> 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
> - 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
> 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
>> 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:
>>> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-net