From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 9 23:37:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFDB16A4CE; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:37:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from daintree.corp.yahoo.com (daintree.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.52.172]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DC043D45; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:37:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@yahoo-inc.com) Received: by daintree.corp.yahoo.com (Postfix, from userid 2154) id 46866881B; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:37:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:37:00 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <55790.1086796559@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <55790.1086796559@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406091637.00032.peter@wemm.org> cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:37:13 -0000 On Wednesday 09 June 2004 08:55 am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <53993.1086779790@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > >The change proposed is more or less to do: > > s/dev_t/struct cdev */ > > s/udev_t/dev_t/ > >over all the kernel sources (366 files or so). > > Looks like a "yea" so far, so I have a couple of follow-up questions: I had a slight preference for 'kdev_t *' in the kernel, but 'struct cdev *' works for me as well so I've changed my mind. No objection from me then. > struct cdev currently has members named si_* because it > used to be called "specinfo", do we want to change that > inconsistency at the same time ? (either by reverting to > the specinfo name or by changing to a cd_ prefix ? Whatever works. > cdevsw->ioctl() takes a caddr_t pointer argument which > really should be a void *, do we want to change that > as well (since it is all the same files we'll have to > change). Yes from me. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5