From owner-freebsd-arch Sun May 19 14:51:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (port757.uc1-esp.isdn-lan.cybercity.dk [212.242.98.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE2737B40A for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 14:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.3/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g4JLoxOw007120 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 23:51:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Marking deGianted functions ? From: Poul-Henning Kamp Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 23:50:59 +0200 Message-ID: <7119.1021845059@critter.freebsd.dk> 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 Do we have a convention for marking functions which have been deGianted() ? If not, could we make some kind of comment convention so people can determine the liberated parts ? as more and more parts of the kernel gets out from under giant this becomes more and more of an issue. I realize that marking the non-safe entrypoints is the "logical" thing to do, but probably less practical, or ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message