From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Dec 6 11:27:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F6237B417 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:27:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id D7F4781E0A; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:27:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:27:15 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Dima Dorfman Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC'ing xucred definition Message-ID: <20011206132715.X92148@elvis.mu.org> References: <20011206065633.9E9953E4B@bazooka.trit.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011206065633.9E9953E4B@bazooka.trit.org>; from dima@trit.org on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 06:56:28AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Dima Dorfman [011206 00:56] wrote: > Is there any reason the definition of struct xucred shouldn't be > MFC'd? I'd like to MFC my LOCAL_PEERCRED/getpeereid() changes, and > would prefer not to have to use the old ucred for a new interface. > I'm not planning to merge the changes to existing interfaces to use > xucred as was done in current (this would probably cause unnecessary > pain in -stable), I just want to merge the definition. > > Here's the change I'm talking about. Any objections? Not if this is this extent of the patch, let's not break all the ucred interfaces in -stable though, that would be bad. > Index: ucred.h > =================================================================== -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message