Re: suggested patches for netinet6/

From: B ($B?_at_L@C#:H(B)
Date: 04/13/04

  • Next message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: suggested patches for netinet6/" 
    Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:16:55 +0900
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>

    >>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:56:38 -0700,
    >>>>> Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> said:

    >> > + is it ok to remove the __P() from the header files, ANSIfy
    >> > the function declarations and make them static as appropriate ?
    >> > Of course this ought to be done as a separate step.
    >>
    >> I myself do not have a strong opinion on this. However, these files
    >> would also be shared with other BSDs via KAME snaps, and if this
    >> change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future
    >> synchronization between KAME and BSDs.

    > ok, I am just unclear if we periodically import KAME sources in the
    > tree and then reapply freebsd changes (trying to keep the latter
    > as small as possible) or someone from time to time looks at
    > relevant changes in the KAME tree and patches the freebsd version
    > accordingly. In the latter case, ANSIfying the code would have little
    > impact on the people porting back the patches, yet would help a lot
    > in using stricter compiler checks.

    Out of curiosity (as a novice compiler user), could you be more
    specific on how it helps with stricter compiler checks to remove
    __P()? For example, what kind of checks does interfere with __P()?

                                            JINMEI, Tatuya
                                            Communication Platform Lab.
                                            Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
                                            jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: suggested patches for netinet6/"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: suggested patches for netinet6/
      ... >> change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future ... >> synchronization between KAME and BSDs. ... > impact on the people porting back the patches, ... > in using stricter compiler checks. ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: suggested patches for netinet6/
      ... sorry, that included a bit from my new arp code (basically, ... more host route entries generated by cloning, and the MAC ... According to nd6_nbr.c in the latest KAME ... > change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: suggested patches for netinet6/
      ... sorry, that included a bit from my new arp code (basically, ... more host route entries generated by cloning, and the MAC ... According to nd6_nbr.c in the latest KAME ... > change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: suggested patches for netinet6/
      ... rev. 1.216 of tcp_input.c with the introduction of TCP host cache. ... According to nd6_nbr.c in the latest KAME ... > the function declarations and make them static as appropriate? ... change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: suggested patches for netinet6/
      ... rev. 1.216 of tcp_input.c with the introduction of TCP host cache. ... According to nd6_nbr.c in the latest KAME ... > the function declarations and make them static as appropriate? ... change is not accepted by other BSDs, I'd like to keep it for future ...
      (freebsd-net)