In some email I received from Jason R Thorpe, sie wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 11:08:31AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
> 
>  > I imagine a new set of structures to describe these protocols that were
>  > alignment agnostic would also be in order ?
> 
> Huh?  Protocols that are alignment-agnostic don't have to do anything,
> now, or with my changes.

I was thinking in cases where we might want to access parts of the header
while it is not guaranteed to be aligned.

>  > Hmmm, maybe there should be a single structure which holds all of the mbuf
>  > statistic counters rather than having MPFail, MSFail, etc.  Then we could
>  > make that available via sysctl too...maybe I should come back with a patch
>  > for that ?
> 
> I was thinking of turning them into evcnt's.

They seem to have an awfully big overhead in terms of memory required for
a simple counter.

Hmmm, also looks like the evcnt struct isn't correctly built for 64bit
systems either (ev_pad1 should be [5]).

Darren