Subject: Re: M_READONLY
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/21/2004 07:07:17
> Doesn't the NFS code attach the contents of a struct buf to an mbuf to
> achieve zero-copy sends? The contents of that struct buf should really
> not be modified, but your patch would make the mbuf code assume that it
> can be.
the nfs code (both of client and server) uses M_EXT_ROMAP.
> > if it isn't enough (although there's currently no case i can think of),
> > we can introduce a new flag, say, M_EXT_READONLY.
> I would say that the existing behavior should remain, and non-cluster
> external storage that is R/W'able should explicitly set an M_EXT_RW
should M_EXT_RW be set for M_CLUSTER mbufs as well?
although i prefer M_EXT_READONLY because the most of mbufs are R/W,
M_EXT_RW is also ok for me.