Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:10:17 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New getblk parameter. Message-ID: <3E62E3B9.32887967@mindspring.com> References: <20030302232340.R84333-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > If you are not going to change all the calls to getblk(), it > > should probably be a wrapper function, or, minimally, an inline > > and a wrapper function. > > > > The reasoning is that it chould be called from precompiled > > modules, so you want to leave a symbol visible for it, which > > defining it to getblkf(..., 0) doesn't do. > > Precompiled modules are already going to be broken with the new locking > semantics. I think requiring them to recompile is OK. I intend to bump > the FreeBSD version if this goes in. > > I'd sort of like to change all the getblk() calls actually. If no one > strongly objects to that I'll do it. I'd personally prefer that to the getblkf() thing. If you aren't making the change for a reason, like not wanting to change the ABI, that's one thing; but if it's going to trade out symbol space and a name obfuscation, it's best to just change them all. By my count, there's only about 60 of them, and it's a mechanical change that would take less than a minute with a modified cscope that can do parameter addition of the zero, or 5 minutes manually. You should just "go for it" (assuming RE@ OK's it). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E62E3B9.32887967>