On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

> > Really? I see a unanimous consensus to drop [all NetBSD] tags, in the
> > specific case of icmp-reflection. Also in the general case, whenever
> > an in-kernel protocol re-uses an inbound mbuf as an outbound packet,
> > instead of allocating a new chain for the outbound packet.
>
> 	use m_tag_delete() in icmp_reflect case.  i can live with that.
>
> 	you are yet to define what 'persistent tag' is.  it is weird to
> 	introduce m_tag_delete_nonpersistent() before defining what is
> 	persistent and what is non-persistent (flag bit?).

This point I do agree with. Also, m_tag_delete_nonpersistent() is an ugly
name; can we come up with something shorter?

> > Nobody else objects to m_tag_delete_nonpersistent(). It helps maintain
> > consistency, going forward, with other *BSDs, who do need it.
>
> 	"nobody else"?  why in the hell my objection gets ignored?

I think the idea is that no one other than you objects to the idea.

One thing I've noticed in this thread and the one about passing a socket
is that there seems to be an assosciation that not heeding someone's
(typically Itojun's, but not necessarily) suggestion == ignoring it. I do
not think that is so; there is a difference between ignoring a suggestion,
and hearing a suggestion, considering it, and then disagreeing with it for
a specific reason.

Take care,

Bill