From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Feb 28 09:58:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA08358
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08346;
          Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA02211; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:54:14 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199702281754.KAA02211@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Will the real uid_t please stand up?
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:54:14 -0700 (MST)
Cc: bde@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199702281542.HAA29897@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 28, 97 07:42:12 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Does the following patch seem appropriate or are there reasons
> for artificially limiting uid_t to a ushort which I still don't
> know about?

yp.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.