From owner-cvs-all  Tue Jan 21 17:59:41 2003
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EF06E37B401; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:59:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 164A843E4A; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:59:39 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0M1xSZ30224;
	Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:59:28 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:59:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>,
	Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>,
	<cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha busdma_machdep.c src/sys/alpha/osf1
 imgact_osf1.c osf1_misc.c src/sys/cam cam_periph.c cam_sim.c cam_xpt.c
 src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_cd.c scsi_ch.c scsi
In-Reply-To: <20030121204518.F46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
Message-ID: <20030121205616.I46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <cvs-all.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20cvs-all>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20cvs-all>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Not when you consider the huge amount of externally maintained kernel
> code and the time required to adjust that code to sync up with changes
> like this.
>
> Personally, I think the value that looks like a flag, is mostly treated
> like a flag, but you can't test like a flag is just asking for foot
> shooting.  I think we should depreciate it with verbage for 5.0 and do
> something more sane for 6.0.  I think 'more sane' is mostly a bike shed
> but obviously something other than what we currently have.  I'll let
> others comment on that.
>
> Even though I knew it was not a flag I still got it wrong twice in uma,
> btw.  So it is on my list of things that would be nice to do once we
> branch 5.1 off of head.
>

Ok, I looked at the diff/commit a little closer.  What I suggest we do is
this:

Leave M_WAITOK defined.  This way we keep the ABI and API the same for
5.0.  In 6.0 go ahead and remove it.  New code should not use this 'flag'.

I'm ok with the rest.

Cheers,
Jeff


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message