Date: 05 Oct 2001 12:04:21 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Removing ptrace(2)'s dependency on procfs(5) Message-ID: <xzpg08ybdy2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20011005141014.W12962-100000@delplex.bde.org> References: <20011005141014.W12962-100000@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > On 5 Oct 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > procfs_rwmem() was originally derived from code which still resides > > (#if 0'd out) in sys_process.c. That's why I felt it was the most > > logical place to move it to. > This may have happened before the dawn of history, but 4.4BSD-Lite has > a full procfs_rwmem() and only stubs in sys_process.c, so FreeBSD > certainly didn't derive procfs_rwmem() from sys_process.c. History > shows that sys_process.c once used pread(), but peter changed it to > use procfs in rev.1.21. It's more likely that pread() was derived > from procfs_rwmem() than vice versa. The comments in the code indicate that procfs_rwmem() was derived by merging pread() and pwrite(), not the other way around - and there are a lot of similarities between them. > This is not quite right in your reorganization. The functions are needed > by both procfs and ptrace, so they shouldn't be in procfs_machdep.c or > have names beginning with procfs. I didn't pick that location or those names. I'll move and rename these functions later, when I don't have sixty or seventy uncommitted patches in two different and partially conflicting source trees. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpg08ybdy2.fsf>