On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 06:25:48PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> I actually have a local patch which bumps the m_flags field to an int, 
> because I needed to make some custom changes to the socket code, which 
> required a few extra mbuf flags.
> 
> I'll merge in the bits that widen the field (and shuffle the mbuf 
> header accordingly) and ride the kernel version bump resulting from the 
> new PID allocation code.

Cool, thanks.

But what do you think about M_PROMISC ? Should it be a plain m_flag, or
is uing a M_LINK for it OK ?
I think it's OK, after all M_PROMISC is constrained to if_ethersubr.c ...

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--