mbuf.h rev 1.142

From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius_at_cell.sick.ru>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:14 +0400
  Dear sirs,

  what was the reason for moving ip_claim_next_hop() from ip_var.h
to mbuf.h? As far as I understand mbuf.h contains declarations to
mbuf interface, which is lower than IP protocol, or sockets.

m_claim_next_hop() is not really a pure mbuf function, while all other
functions in mbuf.h are.

After rev 1.142 including mbuf.h requires including of netinet/in.h,
and this is not logically correct.

Can you show me reason for this mixing of interface layers?

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Received on Tue May 18 2004 - 10:02:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC