From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 22 17:16:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD9C106567A; Thu, 22 May 2008 17:16:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk1.360sip.com [72.236.70.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3D18FC2A; Thu, 22 May 2008 17:16:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([204.244.149.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4MHGaBI080092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 May 2008 10:16:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4835AA65.6070708@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:16:21 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Leffler References: <200805221440.m4MEe32W039559@repoman.freebsd.org> <4835A619.3010502@FreeBSD.org> <4835A71E.3030703@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4835A71E.3030703@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man3 Makefile queue.3 src/sys/sys queue.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:16:38 -0000 Sam Leffler wrote: > Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> Ed Schouten wrote: >>> The OpenBSD version of SLIST_REMOVE_NEXT() needs a reference to the >>> list >>> head, even though it is unused. >> >> I don't think it's necessary. sys/queue.h API is not supposed to be >> portable across different operating systems. The need to pass list >> head around may impede macro usefulness. > Gratuitous differences impede porting. If it's not a big deal then > maintain compatibility. We already have stupid differences in various > areas that must be papered over when code is brokered between systems. This is local use convenience vs. easy of porting tradeoff. On one hand API is used heavily in the kernel on the other I don't think we have lot of kernel code being ported from OpenBSD nowadays. So that local use convinience should win a big. I could be wrong, though. -Maxim