From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 28 7:15:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from hda.hda.com (host65.hda.com [63.104.68.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB6537B626 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1SFFTG03184; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:15:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dufault) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:15:29 -0500 From: Peter Dufault To: Julian Elischer Cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: controversial fix or some errors breaking LINT Message-ID: <20020228101529.A3139@hda.hda.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:27:48PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > A while ago I proposed the following patch: > > /* > * Note: the "volatile" below does not REQUIRE that the argument be > * volatile, but rather ony says that it is OK to use a volatile * i > * there. Same for the const. I know a const volatile sounds strange > * but it only indicates that either is acceptable. > */ > void bcopy __P((volatile const void *from, volatile void *to, size_t > len)); I object to keeping the same name. Change it to "bvcopy" or something. Yes, this is the kernel, but same names should imply same semantics. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message