Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:07:01 +0800 From: Zhao Shuai <zhaoshuai@freebsd.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 162206 for review Message-ID: <8126ef5c0905180707w7c238133q37e3d42ea321ead2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10905170632g7ad74f3dk3cdb3ad5576da394@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905171226.n4HCQXS9011874@repoman.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10905170632g7ad74f3dk3cdb3ad5576da394@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, that is an elegant solution and I will do that. What's your opinion, John? This week I just wanna make fifo work using the existing pipe code, so current modification in pipe code looks ugly. But I think it helps me to figure out which part of pipe code can be shared. 2009/5/17 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> > > I'm not sure how do you and John want to organize the work, but when I > was thinking about it my main idea was firstly to refactorize the pipe > code, identifying common parts that can be shared and put under > subr_something.c (for example) to be sucked in by both pipes and FIFOs > main code. > > -- Regards, Zhao
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8126ef5c0905180707w7c238133q37e3d42ea321ead2>