I'll get back to you tomorrow. Not working today :-)

Summary changed:

In D35133#798103, @trasz wrote:

Linux, it’s a Linux core file :-) The easiest way is to use debootstrap port to bootstrap an Ubuntu Bionic userland, then chroot there and do “apt install gdb”. See https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxJails.

finished, tested on arm64 (sysarch), amd64

Go ahead with the revert

Actually I don't think any user space would have problems. Potentially we have only generic types and pointers to forward declared structs.

I tend to remove as much preprocessor as possible in favor of the modern C. And I would like to move all other network protocols into this declaration, too. So that there will be a single place (properly commented) where you can see all the the possible uses and see if there are any conflicts. Yes, ideally to get rid of all these sixteen's and thirtytwo's. But I'm afraid we should leave them for external modules.

Linux, it’s a Linux core file :-) The easiest way is to use debootstrap port to bootstrap an Ubuntu Bionic userland, then chroot there and do “apt install gdb”. See https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxJails.

Would this work equally for the security/openssl-quictls port?

Calculations and comment are accurate.

This is an accurate calculation the the extra needed space.

In D35133#798060, @trasz wrote:

I’m not opposed to this patch, but isn’t this what core files are for?

I still do not like the idea that layer specifics are inside mbuf structs; I have not committed the @rrs approved https://reviews.freebsd.org/D34298 for reasons that I thought it'll need more discussions.

Remove duplicates

And enum and use switch for lookup instruction