[openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <Waldemar.Kornewald@xxxxxx>
- To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:50:46 +0200
> Solution to fix that issue need more consideration.
>
> I don't like the idea of a public variable exported by kernel module api.
> Beside that issue, that's global variables aiming to be used *per* module.
> max_xxxx variables won't have same value for each network modules using
> mbuffers...
Why do we need this information per module? Somehow the protocol would have to
know in advance (before constructing the packet) which way it would go down the
stack (which other protocols and which interface it will pass). How can our
mbuf implementation know this?
Could not all modules just set max_linkhdr and max_protohdr globally (using
get/set_max_xxx functions exported by the core module)? IMHO, this would at
least work until we get a netstack replacement.
There are many more bugs in the stack. How much is working at the moment? Will
TCP work after these mbuf bugs are solved (or does it work already)?
Waldemar
- Follow-Ups:
- [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- From: Philippe Houdoin
Other related posts:
- » [openbeosnetteam] mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- » [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- [openbeosnetteam] Re: mbuf.h
- From: Philippe Houdoin