Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?
From: Garance A Drosihn (drosih_at_rpi.edu)
Date: 06/09/04
- Previous message: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: Alexey Dokuchaev: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:42:38 -0400 To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
At 8:43 AM -0400 6/9/04, Brian Feldman wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 09, 2004, 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 *.
This sounds like the right path to me.
-- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu _______________________________________________ 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: John Baldwin: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- In reply to: Brian Feldman: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Next in thread: Alexey Dokuchaev: "Re: dev_t / udev_t confusion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
