moving sockbuf in to its own header

[Kip Macy]

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
>> 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"
>>
>