From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 11 18: 0:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEBF37B416; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020212020015.CHQM1214.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:00:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA19123; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:53:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:53:54 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: John Baldwin Cc: current@freebsd.org, bde@freebsd.org Subject: RE: ucred holding patch, BDE version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 11-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote: > > here is the BDE version ready to commit. > > Extended to other architectures. > > > > Bruce, John, comments? > > > > As I was adding a prototype to ucred.h I stripped the __Ps of the others in > > that > > section > > (in the spirit of "change it when editing it anyhow" > > Hmm, acquire_ucred (don't really like that name, maybe thread_updatecred(td) > which can use td_proc to get the proc) probably should be declared in > sys/proc.h. Well, maybe not, sys/ucred.h is probably fine. But it's > implementation should then be in kern_prot.c along with all the other ucred > related functions. :) I guess so. The name requires changing anyhow as it was pointed out to me that Bruce mis-spelled acquire and I didn't notice. > > Also, please make the comment above the function into a complete sentence and > capitalize appropriately, etc. as per style(9) just to be pedantic. I guess > removing __P() as you go is ok if that spirit is what the -arch thread is > desired. Personally I thought it should be the other way around just like we > don't mix whitespace commits with code commits to avoid obfuscating function > changes with style changes. IMO, just commit to ucred.h blowing away __P() > first, then commit your functional changes with the rest. hmmm I am completely confused as to which way we ended up deciding then.. :-) > > -- > > John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message