Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: HEADSUP!!!! KSE Milestone-2 COMMITTED Message-ID: <XFMail.010912131053.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109121049290.59165-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12-Sep-01 Julian Elischer wrote: > My comment is that if this is a locking change than it should be part of > the locking changes.. > so it's just each of us 'batting' to put the patch in the other > set.. You could have done 'suser(td->td_proc)' but instead you have changed an API that now has to be unchanged. :( Hence we have people asking about whether or not to document the suser_td() function. This would not have required the 'p' variable and would have preserved the API, which is perfectly acceptable in this case seeing as how ucred's are per-proc and not per-thread, thus suser() still is a proc related check, not a thread related one as suser_td() seems to imply. No bother, it will all be backed out eventually anyways. :-/ -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010912131053.jhb>