Hi, On 02/18/2015 11:37 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> How was this managed before, since refcnt field seems to be necessary in >>> order >>> to effectively manage indirect mbufs? Is this just the case that this is >>> something >>> that never worked and that needs to be solved, or is it something that was >>> working that this patch will now break? >> >> This is something that never worked before: refcounts are not compatible >> with reserving private data in mbufs. This patch does not change the >> issue, it is still there. >> >> Before the patch, an application that wanted to reserve a private >> data could disable refcounts at compile-time. >> After the patch, the solution is just to avoid using refcounts. >> >> Regards, >> Olivier >> > Thanks for clarifying. > So, you ok with this patch as a step in the right direction?
Yep, Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>