Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:50:22 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 101643 for review Message-ID: <200607171150.22668.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060715143502.GA77297@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <200607150905.k6F959IT031112@repoman.freebsd.org> <200607151003.28710.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060715143502.GA77297@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 15 July 2006 10:35, Divacky Roman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:03:28AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Saturday 15 July 2006 05:05, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=101643 > > > > > > Change 101643 by rdivacky@rdivacky_witten on 2006/07/15 09:04:22 > > > > > > Several things at once: > > > > > > o Change process_exit and process_exec function handlers prototype > > > to include struct image_params arg. > > > > Why did you add it to process_exit()? exit() doesn't have an imgp to > > pass, so this doesn't make sense. If you are doing it so you can use > > the same function for both, then use a wrapper in the exit() case or some > > such. > > because most users of process_exec eventhandler use the same function both > for process_exit and process_exec. I didnt know how to solve that otherwise. > in the process_exit case I pass in NULL and I change all the other users to > > foo(void *arg, struct proc *p, struct image_params *imgp __unused) > > if its not ok tell me how to change that I don't think it's clean design wise. I think you should fix all the other places to register a different function for the exec/exit cases. One can just be a wrapper for the other (e.g. have the exec one just ignore the imgp and call the exit one). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607171150.22668.jhb>