Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 06:49:16 -0500 (EST) From: Ray Kohler <ataraxia@cox.net> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@bsdimp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING Message-ID: <200211081149.gA8BnGF5073259@arkadia.nv.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20021108.003935.11624259.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002 > Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST) > To: current@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING > From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> > > In message: <200211072337.gA7NbK1m082069@arkadia.nv.cox.net> > Ray Kohler <ataraxia@cox.net> writes: > : Hear hear, I agree. There's no need to expose what ought to be > : "private" data to the world, especially when we can get the additional > : benefit here of letting us play with the implementation. > > -current already does this. The problem is that we're trying to shoot > the bad access in the head, and that is what is screwing people. So > the problem isn't that we're trying to export private data to the > world. Quite the contrary, we're trying to eliminate it and having > growing pains. Exactly. That's why I'm arguing against putting __sF back (or adopting equally crapulent measures). Growing pains are a necessary evil. (I also agree that we probably ought to staticize any other things of this nature while we're at it and get the pain over with.) - @ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211081149.gA8BnGF5073259>