Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:43:33 +0200
From:      Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
To:        Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Cc:        svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r241916 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6
Message-ID:  <B10715D3-38FC-4B27-9E01-21A457C0B29D@fh-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: <20121024052525.T4723@besplex.bde.org>
References:  <201210222149.q9MLnvrt014543@svn.freebsd.org> <20121023142219.K1008@besplex.bde.org> <FD4A4199-80DB-4D24-8468-29CA121DD1D9@fh-muenster.de> <20121024052525.T4723@besplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>=20
>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Xin LI wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Log:
>>>> Remove __P.
>>>=20
>>> This was a chance to remove style bugs in the prototypes.  At least =
it
>>> didn't create so many new ones, unlike the original __P axing.  It
>>> still enlarged about a hundred by changing from Gnu style =
continuation
>>> to Gnu style continuation indentation with an off-by-5 error.
>>=20
>> please note that the SCTP code in the FreeBSD sources is generated
>> via an export script from a codebase which runs on multiple =
platforms.
>> The script tries to follow FreeBSDs guidelines, but is far from being
>> perfect.
>=20
> The export script might not like manual editing of its output.
>=20
> Portability might require __P(()), and then removing it cleaning =
requires
> a complicated script.
Maybe I wasn't clear...

* The removal of __P() needs also be done upstream. I'll handle this, =
not problem.
  I don't think we need __P on any platform.
* My comment was regarding your list of formatting issues of the code. =
Changing
  the formatting would require changing the export script.
  If someone "just" changes the FreeBSD sources and these changes are =
not included
  upstream, they are lost by the next commit of rrs@ or mine.

My point was: Getting rid of __P is fine and we can handle that upstream =
(as
any other non whitespace/formatting changes needed), but changing the =
formatting
is NOT that easy. I'm sorry about that and just wanted to let you know =
that
there is a reason why the style 9 stuff is not followed exactly within =
the
SCTP code.

I hope this makes the situation clearer.

Best regards
Michael
>=20
> Bruce
>=20




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B10715D3-38FC-4B27-9E01-21A457C0B29D>