Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi Scott,
The discussion has been moved to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Please only reply
there next time.
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Scott Long wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
Please keep me CC'ed, hence I'm not on all these lists.
In the kernel we currently
Hi Scott,
The discussion has been moved to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Please only reply
there next time.
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Scott Long wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please keep me CC'ed, hence I'm not on all these lists.
> >
> > In the kernel we currently have two di
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
Please keep me CC'ed, hence I'm not on all these lists.
In the kernel we currently have two different data backstores:
struct mbuf
and
struct buf
These two backstores serve two different device types. "mbufs" are for network
devices and "buf" is for disk de
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:31 +0200:
> Please keep me CC'ed, hence I'm not on all these lists.
>
> In the kernel we currently have two different data backstores:
>
> struct mbuf
>
> and
>
> struct buf
>
> These two backstores serve two different device t
Hi,
Please keep me CC'ed, hence I'm not on all these lists.
In the kernel we currently have two different data backstores:
struct mbuf
and
struct buf
These two backstores serve two different device types. "mbufs" are for network
devices and "buf" is for disk devices.
Problem:
The current
