Step 1.5 needs review

[Robert Watson]

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.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge