Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
From: John Baldwin (jhb_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 06/09/04
- Previous message: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:55:45 -0400
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 08:43 am, Brian Feldman wrote:
> 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 *.
Seconded.
-- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org _______________________________________________ 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: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
