> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:59:20PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> >  - There should not be a new token field in mbufs, just use m_tag(9)
> 
> I would explicitly discourage m_tag. The overhead of maintaining another
> two allocations per packet is IMO completely wrong. It was nice during
> initial development of some subsystems, it is also useful for large
> allocations like IPsec does, but in general firewalls and ALTQ should
> get a few bytes in the packet header for this.
> 
> I tried that in DragonFly and it actually simplified e.g. PF quite a
> bit.
> 
> Joerg

how about tweaking m_tag api so that a few small tags can be allocated from
embedded storage in mbuf automatically?

YAMAMOTO Takashi