From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 10 09:06:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7551416A41C; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:06:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DCC43D1D; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:06:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEB160F3; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1622860F2; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 052CD33C3B; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:17 +0200 (CEST) To: Joseph Koshy References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com> (Joseph Koshy's message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:23:21 +0530") Message-ID: <863brqy41j.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -5.1/5.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on tim.des.no Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:06:23 -0000 Joseph Koshy writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav writes: > > It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand introduce a > > new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces, and on the other hand > > continue to assume that they are assignment-compatible. > I'd be very surprised if two C structures with identical definitions > were not assignment compatible. I wouldn't be surprised if the standard says they aren't. Unfortunately, my copy is at home. > The code in question would have > changed (to something like what it is now) had the MD struct changed > in the future. Of course, but you wouldn't be able to run an old userland on a new kernel. I thought that was (much of) the point of separating MI from MD. Please fix your MUA to attribute what it quotes. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no