Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:49:33 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22626 for review Message-ID: <20021222234933.GB1414@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20021222.151026.100645554.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200212221927.gBMJR0si013191@repoman.freebsd.org> <20021222.151026.100645554.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 03:10:26PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <200212221927.gBMJR0si013191@repoman.freebsd.org>
> Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org> writes:
> : static int
> : sio_pccard_detach(dev)
> : device_t dev;
> : {
> : - return (siodetach(dev));
> : + /* XXX broken */
> : }
>
> This is clearly not acceptible.
I completely fail to see why. I have to get a job done and as long as
I don't commit it to CVS I don't see why I cannot break anything that's
not immediately relevant to ia64 or to the job at hand. The primary
reason for this kind of axing is that I cannot test it at all and it
can only create bugs if I try to preserve it. It's much better to get
rid of it and spend the extra effort when it's being restored. A second
reason why I don't worry about it now is that it's not specific to
pccard anymore.
--
Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021222234933.GB1414>