Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:53:21 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> Subject: Re: Changes to suser() and friends Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111021252001.47458-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011102122011.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > For compatibility in drivers that call suser() for 4.x and 5.x. I guess also > for the same reason we insist on passing down curthread to syscalls and vops > instead of assuming curthread. > > > I see creeping murk here! > > And if a device driver is calling suser()? This makes that case easier to > maintain for the driver author since the code wont' care if this is a thread or > proc, and so a simple #define suser(x,y) suser(x) can be used to make > -current code work on -stable. I agree in the case of device drivers.. I thought you were indicationg elsewhere.... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0111021252001.47458-100000>