From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 15 23:32:14 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D79016A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:32:14 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0221D43D8A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:32:10 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D181BC66;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:32:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:52 MST."
	<20051215.162352.28837879.imp@bsdimp.com> 
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:32:09 +0100
Message-ID: <2936.1134689529@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTERS] New system call: abort2() 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:32:14 -0000

In message <20051215.162352.28837879.imp@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh writes:

>> On the similar note, the ability to move declarations closer to the
>> point of use in code is IMO nice feature, too. The style(9) doesn't
>> mention this either.
>
>C doesn't allow it, or didn't until recently.  That style tends to
>lead to really gross things too.  Functions should be short enough
>that it doesn't matter.

Also, it tends to make it harder to judge the amount of stackspace
a function uses, something which is not entirely uninteresting in
kernel programming.

And yes, changing style(9) is just not worth the time it takes.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.