Garrett D'Amore writes: > One significant problem with mcopymsg() is that it freemsg()'s the > source mblk. This is an unexpected (and previously undocumented) side > effect. (I filed a man page bug, which was fixed, to get the side > effect documented.)
As I mentioned first in my message: > > A lot depends on context: exactly what is that "static buffer" and why > > isn't the existing b_rptr sufficient? Depending on what you're trying > > to do, there may well be multiple possible answers. In other words, the real answer depends on what you're actually trying to do. Designing this thing without a clear target usage (and, no, I do *NOT* consider "simply copying to and from a static buffer" to be such a target) is going to be hard. We've all got clearly different assumptions. > I wouldn't complain if something like mcopymsg() were created that > lacked the side effect, mcopydata() or somesuch. But is that exactly what's needed here? It's impossible to tell from the information given. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
