Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:16:57 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@mail.cicely.de> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: lecn1306@ele.etsmtl.ca, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Vinum status Message-ID: <20010407211657.B4055@cicely20.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20010407172348.A76422@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:23:48PM %2B0930 References: <3ACB7215.F40BE906@ele.etsmtl.ca> <20010407172348.A76422@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010407075917.A7354@dragon.nuxi.com> <3ACB7215.F40BE906@ele.etsmtl.ca> <20010407172348.A76422@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:59:18AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:23:48PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > > +/* XXX kludge until we get this struct cleaned up */ > > +#if _KERNEL > > dev_t dev; /* device information */ > > What do you mean by "until we get this struct cleaned up"? > PHK and Mike Smith explained what dev_t in the kernel (plus udev_t) vs. > dev_t in userland are. I saw no indication that was going to change. I asume exactly what Greg wrote: On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:23:48PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: [...] > tends to obfuscate the code. As others have observed, a better > solution would be to remove the dev_t from the expurgated version of > the struct. I have some code in preparation which does this, so it > really doesn't seem to make any sense to change so much code. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010407211657.B4055>