Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com> Cc: Ted Unangst <tedu@zeitbombe.org> Subject: Re: patch: portable dirhash Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031217105921.26359F-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20031217101415.58d0e1fa.ak03@gte.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:12:08 -0500 (EST) > Ted Unangst <tedu@zeitbombe.org> wrote: > > > can somebody please review/commit this to freebsd? it is most of the > > differences to permit openbsd to use the code. it should not change > > the code in any functional way. > > I do not think there is any point in this code ever hitting FreeBSD CVS > repository. Rather, OpenBSD should just take cleaned-out copy of this > code and be done with it. Well, it's true the #ifdef OpenBSD's probably don't help the readability of our code, abstracting a step by using macros to wrap specific locking primitives is a widely used approach in the FreeBSD tree, especially where it's not clear a final locking strategy has been developed due to a lack of profiling. For example, in both the network code and process management code, we wrap mutexes/sxlocks in macros to avoid committing to either, and to make changing the strategy easier. I wouldn't object to our adopting the macro wrapping, which would have the side effect of helping the OpenBSD patch size a lot also, even leaving out the #ifdef's. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031217105921.26359F-100000>