Re: PF test for inclusion

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 02:42:43AM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> On Thursday 16 September 2004 02:16, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> > general opinion (sometimes after thinking a bit longer) about this was
> > to get rid of the needed m_tag allocation each time. pkthdr can be
> > easily extended as m_buf is much larger anyways and this space is not
> > used most of the time.
> 
> And how many packets really use tags (in the non-ALTQ case)? ... anyway

Any package which is tagged (PACKET_TAG_PF_TAG)? This and the flags
PACKET_TAG_PF_GENERATED are the worst case allocations from PF.
Putting it into the pkthdr saves all of the overhead with using 8 bytes.

> > oh btw: joerg, how do you intend pf to be updated later? without a
> > vendor tag, i can imagine that creating + merging diffs from upstream
> > could be a bitch.

The reasoning was that supporting our SMP system will need some bigger
changes to PF. I also don't think that the vendor branch usage really
simplifies the merging between the different systems.

The suggestion of Jeroen to keep the sync date in CVS works IMO as well.

Joerg

> 
> -- 
> /"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier@xxxxxxxxxxx
> \ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
>  X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier@EFnet
> / \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News