On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:41:38AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > What about using a more generic name which is not bound to 80211 since the > > field is a generic pointer. This may allow us to use something similar in > > other drivers like mpe(4), gif(4), gre(4). > > That is basically the only thought I had. I mean you could also start > passing it as a mbuf tag, but probably don't want the allocate/free > overhead.
It would only make sense to use mbuf tags if the allocate/lookup/free path of mbuf tags can be made very small. Did somebody profile them after the switch to a pool backend? -- :wq Claudio
