Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:39:56 +1100 (EST)
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>
Cc:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_acl.c kern_descrip.c kern_event.c kern_mac.c sys_pipe.c sys_socket.c uipc_socket.c uipc_syscalls.c uipc_usrreq.c vfs_aio.c vfs_syscalls.c vfs_vnops.c src/sys/netgraph
Message-ID:  <20030112191531.J5936-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030112014644.F212@locore.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Jake Burkholder wrote:

> Apparently, On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:54:53PM -0800,
> 	Matthew Dillon said words to the effect of;
>
> > ...
> > :In the majority of cases that I looked at the pointer is assigned to a
> > :local variable of the correct type first, in which case the cast is almost
> > :certainly a historical remnant of f_data having type caddr_t.  Removing the
> > :unnecessary casts in that case I agree with, but changing the type of f_data
> > :as well I don't agree with at all.
> >
> >     Well, a good bit of the casts removed also allowed the parenthesis to
> >     be removed, a couple of split lines could be put back together, and
> >     generally it has made it more readable.
>
> Exactly 1 line unless I completely failed in generating an accurate diff
> of your commit.  The lines would be shorter if you had just removed the
> unnecessary casts.

In the only .c file that I've looked at so far (kern_acl.c), there is 1
completely unsplit line and 3 missed opportunities to (partially) unsplit
lines, leaving the latter more misformatted than before.  The changes in
file.h have larger style bugs.

> I find the code more readable with just the unnecessary casts removed.

I agree.  Removing them has been on my todo list for many years.

> > ...
> > :I'm really baffled as to why you did this.
> >
> >     It's a cleanup.  Ugliness I noticed as I was evaluating how easy it
> >     would be to add a memory object file type.  I don't see why you believe
> >     a justification is required other then cleanup and code readability.
> >     void *'s are things you only use when you need to.  We certainly didn't
> >     need to here.  How exactly is this commit so bad that you are against it?
>
> Its unnecessary code churn.  I wouldn't be surprised if struct file was
> used all the place in 3rd party modules, especially MAC modules.  Now
> they either need an ugly compat define or ugly idfefs.  Some of your commits
> were to code that's externally maintained.  We've broken compatibility with
> external code before for compelling reasons.  This is not a compelling reason.
>
> You obviously don't think this is important, I do.  If no one else cares about
> this I'll shut up now.

I agree with all your points.  I slightly prefer "void *" to the union,
but wouldn't change either once it is in use.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030112191531.J5936-100000>