Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:38:05 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r356755 - in head/sys: net netinet netinet6 netpfil/ipfw/nat64 sys Message-ID: <20200115223805.GT39529@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2001150944330.1198@desktop> References: <202001150605.00F65Kc8011526@repo.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2001150944330.1198@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:44:53AM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: J> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: J> J> > Author: glebius J> > Date: Wed Jan 15 06:05:20 2020 J> > New Revision: 356755 J> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/356755 J> > J> > Log: J> > Introduce NET_EPOCH_CALL() macro and use it everywhere where we free J> > data based on the network epoch. The macro reverses the argument J> > order of epoch_call(9) - first function, then its argument. NFC J> J> Is there some practical impact of changing the argument order or does it J> just seem more natural to you? It is just more natural. I'm suggesting to change prototype of epoch_call() to the same order as well. -- Gleb Smirnoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200115223805.GT39529>