[openbeosnetteam] Re: Progress report
- From: "David Reid" <dreid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:50:27 -0000
> > > Me too, and for a reworked naming scheme (proper prefixes, init/
> > > shutdown calls: right now, we have destroy, delete, shutdown,
> > > whatever).
> > yes, I'm aware and have tried to tidy up in my recent changes...
>
> Nice!
I aim to please...
> > This isn't as easy as it sounds :( I've had to have a lot of these as
> > functions from core, which isn't a problem, it's just a long list.
> > why? We
> > want all mbufs centrally allocated, and so any function that touches
> > an
> > allocation/free must be done by the core code.
>
> Why? As long as all the mbufs are allocated in the kernel, where is the
> problem?
Well, we want them all from a central pool don't we? Unless I'm missing
something (very likely) kernel modules can't share data between them, so the
function in one unless exported are invisible to the others? Similarly, if I
have a central core with a pool for mbuf's, then if this can't be directly
accessed by the other modules - they need to via the core. Or at least
that's the way it seems and is how I've been procceeding.
>
> > The kernel defines a timer and so I've used that for the kernel code
> > so far.
> > I'm guessing that's where you got your idea from?:)
>
> Not really - but that makes the net_timer superfluous :)
the userland version still uses it :)
> > Hope you're feeling better soon.
>
> Me too, thanks!
Lot's of rest! I hear coding is good for recovery! :)
david
Other related posts:
