Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:34:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109271731030.65838-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200109272315.f8RNFI776885@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
the patches were available for testing for nearly 3 weeks and NOBODY
mentionned this..
I have no objection to it on principle but I don't want to see people
doing:
#define proc thread
int blah(struct proc *p)
{
foo(p);
}
talk about obscuring the code!!!
and why d_threat_t? is is part of the devsw definition? (d_open_t,
d_write_t)
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <20010927135919.A80580@dragon.nuxi.com> "David O'Brien" writes:
> : !!128!! style(9) breakages?? Uh, Julian we do have standards around here.
> : Why could you not follow them? You seem to have gone out of your way to
> : change existing correct style. Obviously we need to scrutinize your
> : commits more.
>
> I'm still rather grumpy about the struct thread API change to all
> drivers. I'm thinking of creating a d_thread_t typedef that's right
> for both stable and current...
>
> warner
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0109271731030.65838-100000>