Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:10:26 GMT From: Rostislav Krasny <rosti.bsd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/94377 : [patch] /etc/rc.d/sshd improperly tests random dev state Message-ID: <200606082310.k58NAQBk075886@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/94377; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Rostislav Krasny <rosti.bsd@gmail.com>
To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com>
Cc: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: conf/94377 : [patch] /etc/rc.d/sshd improperly tests random dev
state
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:13:30 +0300
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> wrote:
> *shrug* The patch sat idle for 4 months, so you had your chance to say
> your piece. I don't think doing another merge cycle just to sate a minor
> stylistic nit is justified. This code runs once any time the rc script is
> executed, which on most systems is once on boot. Its not like we're trying
> to shave cycles here.
I'm not a FreeBSD developer and I don't check every patch in GNATS or
every commit in HEAD. I've seen that particular patch, for the first
time, only when it has been MFCed to RELENG_6. Your version is working
and I'm not pushing you to change it. But I think
[ "${seeded}" = "0" ]
is not only more efficient but also more readable than
[ "x${seeded}" != "x" ] && [ ${seeded} -eq 0 ]
That is why I wrote my first email. Do with it whatever you think is
right to do.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606082310.k58NAQBk075886>