From owner-cvs-all  Thu Aug 19 17:37:57 1999
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 68998152F3; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au)
Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40337>; Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:16:41 +1000
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:36:37 +1000
From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
Subject: Re: Splitting struct buf
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990819162240.13522J-100000@current1.whistle.com>
To: julian@whistle.com
Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, grog@lemis.com,
	phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Message-Id: <99Aug20.101641est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au>
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> wrote:
>changing both is also a fair idea.
>(that way we know that someone looked at ALL the places the present struct
>buf is used.. :-)

Ignoring the smiley, I think this is probably the best suggestion.  It
provides a clear `heads-up' for any independent device writers that
the usage has changed.  There are about 750 references to struct buf
in the kernel - missing one would be quite easy.

If only one name changes, then POLA would suggest that `struct buf'
remain associated with I/O requests (which is the historical and
probably most common usage).

Peter


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message