From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 15 19:35:31 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A7C1065679; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:35:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC41D8FC0C; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:35:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id WAA15518; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:35:28 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OvxlP-00015A-VW; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:35:27 +0300 Message-ID: <4C911FFD.7090109@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:35:25 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201009151002.o8FA2kvO029237@svn.freebsd.org> <4C90F4B9.3060400@freebsd.org> <4C90F780.8080402@freebsd.org> <201009151437.22412.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201009151437.22412.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r212647 - head/sys/sys X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:35:31 -0000 on 15/09/2010 21:37 John Baldwin said the following: > Hmm, you could use SET_START() and SET_LIMIT() at least, but it's not a big > deal either way. The comment seemed to imply that it would have used > SET_DECLARE() if there had not been technical difficulties. Well, the comment was nonsense, saying what it said, if we consider to what SET_DECLARE() expands today. -- Andriy Gapon