From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Feb 27 09:51:16 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA07239
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA07230
          Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by puli.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA10649; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:50:05 -0800
Message-Id: <199602271750.JAA10649@puli.cisco.com>
To: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Cc: julian@freebsd.org, hsu@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org,
        current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gratuitous changes to db/hash.c for threadsafe operation? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:23:29 PST."
             <199602270323.TAA14264@ref.tfs.com> 
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:50:05 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Damn, yuck.  OK, thanks.

  From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com>
  Subject: Re: gratuitous changes to db/hash.c for threadsafe operation?
  It clashes with the errno in the thread_safe libc
  which is a MACRO
  #define errno (*__errno(current_thread))
  
  or something similar
  this is true in almost every threads package in the world...
  
  > 
  > 
  > Does anyone know why the "errno" value in the hash structure was renamed
  > to "error"?  This seems to be a gratuitous change that was made to the
  > hash code, and I'd like to reverse it out if no one has a particularly
  > good reason for its existance.
  > 
  > You two show up as reviewers of this code, so perhaps you can explain
  > it to me?
  > 
  > I've incorporated the latest version of the db code into the csrg branch
  > and would like to bring it into the mainline.  I'll preserve these changes
  > if they serve a purpose, but I see none served here after looking at this
  > pretty closely, so my default inclination is to revert the code to match
  > the original author's.
  > 
  > Paul
  >