Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:20:59 -0800 From: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <0H94005IYWJT1Z@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> "of Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:48:57 PST." <200301220448.h0M4mvMh000621@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm going to weigh in here on the side of the all the seasoned BSD veterans that we should preserve the M_WAIT flag. I like saying M_WAIT when I mean M_WAIT. I dislike saying 0 when I mean M_WAIT. The fundamental problem here is that M_WAIT looks like a bit flag. That problem should be directly solved by defining it to be a bit flag. There are no ABI issues with this in FreeBSD 5.x. Warner's proposal to automatically detect programming error is also a good idea. And, that relies on making M_WAIT a bit flag too. Let's solve the problem where it really lies by simply making M_WAIT a bit flag. Jeffrey To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0H94005IYWJT1Z>