Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:59:28 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha busdma_machdep.c src/sys/alpha/osf1 imgact_osf1.c osf1_misc.c src/sys/cam cam_periph.c cam_sim.c cam_xpt.c src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_cd.c scsi_ch.c scsi Message-ID: <20030121205616.I46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20030121204518.F46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Not when you consider the huge amount of externally maintained kernel > code and the time required to adjust that code to sync up with changes > like this. > > Personally, I think the value that looks like a flag, is mostly treated > like a flag, but you can't test like a flag is just asking for foot > shooting. I think we should depreciate it with verbage for 5.0 and do > something more sane for 6.0. I think 'more sane' is mostly a bike shed > but obviously something other than what we currently have. I'll let > others comment on that. > > Even though I knew it was not a flag I still got it wrong twice in uma, > btw. So it is on my list of things that would be nice to do once we > branch 5.1 off of head. > Ok, I looked at the diff/commit a little closer. What I suggest we do is this: Leave M_WAITOK defined. This way we keep the ABI and API the same for 5.0. In 6.0 go ahead and remove it. New code should not use this 'flag'. I'm ok with the rest. Cheers, Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030121205616.I46974-100000>