From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 14 14:57:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id A1C371065676; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9561065672; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:57:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) Received: from swip.net (mailfe04.swip.net [212.247.154.97]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A8C8FC16; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:57:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=9QZaWaqL03AA:10 a=P3SC899gXHkOLDnkTYxLZw==:17 a=4mJciNRHH2yAkD04LsIA:9 a=mbLb6u595XxxHeMsqJmA12gRNZgA:4 a=9aOQ2cSd83gA:10 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 Received: from [62.113.133.240] (account mc467741@c2i.net [62.113.133.240] verified) by mailfe04.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTPA id 1165097623; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:57:42 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky To: Warner Losh Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:59:58 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200812122326.mBCNQX6w024511@repoman.freebsd.org> <200812131005.33499.hselasky@c2i.net> <20081213.130816.74659290.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20081213.130816.74659290.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812141559.59329.hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: sam@freebsd.org, perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:57:45 -0000 On Saturday 13 December 2008, Warner Losh wrote: > From: Hans Petter Selasky > Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review > Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:05:32 +0100 > > > This is absoultely the wrong way to implement this. It is so wrong, I > don't even know where to begin. Consider this an 'over my dead body' > level of objection to this design. > We don't want to check a variable in the softc every time we do a htoleXX() ?? Do you have a better suggestion? --HPS