From owner-svn-src-user@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb 27 14:05:47 2010
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-user@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-src-user@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A7A1065670;
	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@freeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B268FC12;
	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:05:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C59C46B4C;
	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:05:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:05:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <201002270338.o1R3cd04040906@svn.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002271404490.49218@fledge.watson.org>
References: <201002270338.o1R3cd04040906@svn.freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-user@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r204391 - in user/jmallett/octeon/sys: ddb mips/mips
 ufs/ffs
X-BeenThere: svn-src-user@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the experimental &quot; user&quot;
	src tree" <svn-src-user.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-user>,
	<mailto:svn-src-user-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-user>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-user@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-user-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-user>,
	<mailto:svn-src-user-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:05:47 -0000


On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Juli Mallett wrote:

>  Make ddb commands take an address as an intptr_t, not a db_expr_t.  It is
>  possible to have 32-bit pointers and 64-bit registers and thus a 64-bit
>  db_expr_t.

Possibly a db_ptr_t is called for, if we're going to differentiate the two 
more formally?

Robert