Re: mbuf flags

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20150301224043.879F530285B%ren.fdy2.co.uk@localhost>,
Robert Swindells  <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>
>christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
>>In article <5298.1425184456%perseus.noi.kre.to@localhost>,
>>Robert Elz  <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:
>>>    Date:        Sun,  1 Mar 2015 00:16:51 +0000 (GMT)
>>>    From:        Robert Swindells <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost>
>>>    Message-ID:  <20150301001651.D680E30285B%ren.fdy2.co.uk@localhost>
>>>
>>>  | Also, keeping everything aligned would require adding an extra hex digit
>>>  | to every one which would make it less clear what had really changed.
>>>
>>>Add the extra digits in a separate (change nothing) commit first,
>>>then your real change will be smooth, and still look nice.
>>>
>>
>>I have this patch to add the extra link bits for FreeBSD compat needed
>>for net80122...
>
>[snip]
>
>Ok, that still doesn't tell me which bit I should use though.
>
>In Kame, the flag I am adding came before the M_LINK ones, it seems
>better to me to follow this pattern and move up the M_LINK[0-7] flags
>by one bit. This would mess up your patch though.

If you do that, you'll break binary compatibility...
What's that flag?

>I presume we would move the M_EXT_ flags up by 4 bits at some point too.
>
>I have modified mbuf.h to just contain the formatting changes:

Fine, lets do the just the formatting changes first.
FreeBSD uses M_PROTO1 -> M_PROTO11 in net80211 (which is M_LINK1-M_LINK11)...

christos