On 18 March 2014 07:20, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: > 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.
meh. i'd say the cookie pointer is fine here. > Did somebody profile them after the switch to a pool backend? > that i did, yes.
