From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 11 14:07:16 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-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 1C34A16A4CE; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:07:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 14C2C43D55; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:07:15 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BE6r8B071617;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:06:53 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:52:29 EDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611084726.64565D-100000@fledge.watson.org> 
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:06:53 +0200
Message-ID: <71616.1086962813@critter.freebsd.dk>
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:07:16 -0000

In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611084726.64565D-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robe
rt Watson writes:

>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.

He already did :-)

>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.

Yes, that is the second half of this change.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.