Re: more mbuf flags

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

In article <20150426183348.2497D30285B%ren.fdy2.co.uk@localhost>,
Robert Swindells  <rjs%fdy2.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>
>I want to use an mbuf flag as part of adding sctp support. My current
>plan is to use M_PROTO1 for this.
>
>The M_PROTO1 flag is used in a few places in the tree:
>
>In sys/net/if_bridge.c it is set for all enqueued mbufs. This was
>introduced in 1.28 as part of a patch to allow gif(4) interfaces to be
>members of a bridge, the rest of the patch has gone now but not this
>line.
>
>In sys/netbt/hci_link.c it is set to indicate that an mbuf is a first
>fragment and checked later.
>
>In the iee80211(4) stack and drivers it is used to indicate that the
>mbuf contains a PS_POLL packet and some wireless drivers test for it.
>
>I think the if_bridge.c usage should be deleted.
>
>All the other current usages seem to me to be features of a link, not
>a protocol and ought to be changed to use one of the M_LINK* flags in
>order to free up M_PROTO1 for use by actual protocols.

Sure, I have a patch to introduce 4 more link flags (needed by FreeBSD's
net80211)... I am not sure if those are really needed yet - I am trying
to get things to compile.

christos