[ note: trimming -current from the CC: list ]
Bosko Milekic writes:
> 1)The mbuf should be marked read-only explicitly with a single
> additional M_FLAG.
>
> #define M_RDONLY0x0x2000
>
> 2)The flag should be ORed in in MEXT_ADD_REF() only if the ref_cnt is
> equal
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, David Malone wrote:
[...]
> (This is why the flag I was talking about in the other mail
> would be useful for spotting other cases where the storage
> may be writable, even if it's not a cluster).
Thoughts:
1) The mbuf should be marked read-only explicitly wit
David Malone writes:
> We were thinking it might be a good idea to have a flag associated
> with mbufs which means they are writable, providing the reference
> count is 1. Then we can provide a macro for checking writability.
> This flag could be set on jumbo ethernet buffers, but not sendfile
> b
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 02:25:55PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Each mbuf may be either a normal mbuf or a cluster mbuf (if the
> mbuf flags contains M_EXT). Cluster mbufs point to an entire page
> of memory, and this page of memory may be shared by more than one
> cluster mbuf (see m_copypacket(
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 02:25:55PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> What do people think? If this is generally agreeable I'll try to
> work on putting together a patch set for review.
Myself and Ian Dowse have been talking about almost this issue
recently in relation to sbcompress. At the moment sbc
