From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 9 14:52:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2DC16A4B3; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.celabo.org (gw.celabo.org [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49DD43FE5; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:52:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (verified OK)) by gw.celabo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FA55482B; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:52:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DF7C46D454; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:52:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:52:46 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Hiten Pandya Message-ID: <20031009215246.GA35560@madman.celabo.org> References: <200310090945.h999jKns055269@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031009121355.GD94235@madman.celabo.org> <20031009202213.GA76157@perrin.nxad.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031009202213.GA76157@perrin.nxad.com> X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i-ja.1 cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libufs bread.3 cgread.3 getino.3 libufs.3 sbread.3 ufs_disk_close.3 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:52:50 -0000 On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:22:13PM -0700, Hiten Pandya wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:13:55AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > : I think you removed the wrong header. Is required in > : each of these cases? If not, then I believe the synopsis should refer > : only to : > : > : (1) Including is (by definition) less work than > : . > > I remove the most logical one and also, there was some > discussion about it on IRC. Also, I was doing an mdoc > review of all the lib manual pages, and I thought I would fix > this, but I did not do a deep code review to see which header > fits best for libufs, as I did not see a reason for it. > > : (2) is a POSIX header, while is not. > > LibUFS is not a POSIX library anyway, so I don't see what this > has got to do with anything. If anyone is inclined on me > backing this out, I don't mind, although, I made a > judgement/logical call when committing this. Bruce pointed out that is actually needed, so there is no issue. You made the right call, I just couldn't tell from the commit. On could argue that is needed for `size_t', regardless of whether our implementation hides that fact, but I won't go there :-) Regarding: > LibUFS is not a POSIX library anyway, so I don't see what this > has got to do with anything. If there is a choice between a standard header and a system-specific header, go for the standard header. In this case, it wasn't a choice. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se