From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 12:53:53 2004 Return-Path: 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 9C26C16A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C28243D49 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:53:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BCqT6h064796; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:52:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i5BCqTVo064789; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:52:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <69020.1086934568@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel dev_t elimination patch for review X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 11 Jun 2004 12:53:53 -0000 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/dev_t.patch > > This patch changes "dev_t" in the kernel to "struct cdev *" > and is 337K of boredom like: > > -static dev_t perfdev; > +static struct cdev *perfdev; > > People who maintain cross-platform or cross-version source code in the > kernel, should take a close look at this patch. > > If you don't like the way I have done it (which is mostly automated) > you are more than welcome to commit your own patch, all you have to do > is use "struct cdev *" instead of "dev_t", and you can do that already > now. > > In about a week or so, I will commit the remaining bits of this patch. It looks reasonable to me, although bde will no doubt point out there are a couple of places where function declarations get too long for a line, comments don't line up, etc. Do you plan to eliminate udev_t in a following step and return it to dev_t? There are some positive and negative aspecets of doing so relating to cross-platform compatibility, one suspects, but it would be nice for consistency purposes now that the kernel dev_t is gone. Looks good! Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research