Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:01:45 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> Cc: julian@whistle.com, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, grog@lemis.com Subject: Re: Splitting struct buf Message-ID: <2046.935125305@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:36:37 %2B1000." <99Aug20.101641est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <99Aug20.101641est.40337@border.alcanet.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: >Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> wrote: >>changing both is also a fair idea. >>(that way we know that someone looked at ALL the places the present struct >>buf is used.. :-) > >Ignoring the smiley, I think this is probably the best suggestion. It >provides a clear `heads-up' for any independent device writers that >the usage has changed. There are about 750 references to struct buf >in the kernel - missing one would be quite easy. > >If only one name changes, then POLA would suggest that `struct buf' >remain associated with I/O requests (which is the historical and >probably most common usage). I'm happy either way, I'm not religiously attached to any of the names. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! 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?2046.935125305>