Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
From: Brian Feldman (green_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 06/09/04
- Previous message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Poul-Henning Kamp: "dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: Maxime Henrion: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: Garance A Drosihn: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:43:08 -0400 To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:16:30PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> [...]
> The change proposed is more or less to do:
> s/dev_t/struct cdev */
> s/udev_t/dev_t/
> over all the kernel sources (366 files or so).
> [....]
One yes vote, please. The dev_t structure is not treated as opaque,
so as long as people are going to->dereference it, it deserves to be
a struct *.
-- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Poul-Henning Kamp: "dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: Maxime Henrion: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Reply: Garance A Drosihn: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|