Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:15:09 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ddb db_command.c db_thread.c src/sys/vm vm_object.c vm_pageout.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c src/sys/i386/ibcs2 ibcs2_sysvec.c Message-ID: <45AE75BD.8060703@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200701171105.36393.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200701171505.l0HF5qGd068469@repoman.freebsd.org> <200701171105.36393.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 17 January 2007 10:05, Xin LI wrote: >> delphij 2007-01-17 15:05:52 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/ddb db_command.c db_thread.c >> sys/vm vm_object.c vm_pageout.c >> sys/i386/i386 pmap.c >> sys/i386/ibcs2 ibcs2_sysvec.c >> Log: >> Use FOREACH_PROC_IN_SYSTEM instead of using its unrolled form. > > I actually think this macro is actually not that useful and I'd rather > we get rid of it. :) For one thing zombies are still processes and this > doesn't cover those, so the name is a bit misleading. However, this is a > minor thing, and I can see that the kernel should be consistent one way or > another. I'd just vote for being consistent by removing FOREACH_PROC and > FOREACH_THREAD. The kernel doesn't use wrappers for other lists, it just > uses LIST_FOREACH and TAILQ_FOREACH directly. > I personally prefer to use them and one reason to do so is to allow the macros to be changed to check locking etc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45AE75BD.8060703>