Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:51:02 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Cc: bz@freebsd.org, cem@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r356755 - in head/sys: net netinet netinet6 netpfil/ipfw/nat64 sys Message-ID: <ff4026ac-03e2-1b90-9e80-d888bc190a0e@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <20200115061046.GR39529@FreeBSD.org> References: <202001150605.00F65Kc8011526@repo.freebsd.org> <20200115061046.GR39529@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-01-15 07:10, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > I really want to reverse the argument order of epoch_call() as well. > The current order is really backwards: > > void > epoch_call(epoch_t epoch, epoch_context_t ctx, > void (*callback)(epoch_context_t)); > > Suggested declaration is: > > void > epoch_call(epoch_t epoch, epoch_context_t ctx, > void (*callback)(epoch_context_t)); Hi, I think he meant to put the ctx argument last. Look at how the function is implemented to see if that makes any sense, I.E. how arguments are optimised. > epoch_call(epoch_t epoch, epoch_context_t ctx, > void (*callback)(epoch_context_t)); Is this *want* just because of "function, argument" is better than "argument, function" ? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ff4026ac-03e2-1b90-9e80-d888bc190a0e>