Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:48:44 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: sam@errno.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, flz@xbsd.org Subject: Re: SIMPLEQ_* macros from OpenBSD sys/queue.h Message-ID: <20050714114844.GD26821@beatrix.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <20050714.002247.82101613.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20050712221444.GA1180@gothmog.gr> <42D56C15.2070400@errno.com> <20050713210941.GA841@gothmog.gr> <20050714.002247.82101613.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-07-14 00:22, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > In message: <20050713210941.GA841@gothmog.gr> > Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> writes: > : I couldn't agree more. Helping source-level compatibility, as much as > : this can be accomplished for kernel code, is definitely a plus. This is > : partly the reason why I noted that OpenBSD synchronized their queue.h > : header with NetBSD a few times in the past. I just didn't propose > : something like this because I'm not sure I can convince any of the three > : BSD teams to s/SIMPLEQ/STAILQ/ or vice versa :-) > > Yea, but adding the #defines to sys/queue.h in both directions likely > wouldn't hurt. Surely. Great idea! As long as there *is* an equivalent macro that exactly matches the expected behavior, this can work nicely.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050714114844.GD26821>