From owner-cvs-all Tue Jan 21 18: 8:28 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 05CEB37B401; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBE843ED8; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F7F2A7EA; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jeff Roberson Cc: Bosko Milekic , Nate Lawson , Bruce Evans , Alfred Perlstein , 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: <20030121205616.I46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:08:26 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20030122020826.87F7F2A7EA@canning.wemm.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jeff Roberson wrote: > > 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'. Slight variation. Can we make M_WAITOK and the other not-a-flag flags ifdef'ed under KLD_MODULE or something? That way we can reduce some of the avoidable pain with 3rd party external modules, and still get to be sure that our own house (src/sys/*) is kept clean. Cheers, -Peter -- 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message