Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:06:00 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 frag6.c Message-ID: <200310220906.00993.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <yge7k2xfev6.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <200310221532.h9MFWusl093984@repoman.freebsd.org> <200310220845.31046.sam@errno.com> <yge7k2xfev6.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 08:53 am, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > Hi, > > >>>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:45:31 -0700 > >>>>> Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> said: > > sam> The convention used throughout the kernel is for > > sam> FOO_LOCK_ASSERT() > > sam> to generate an assertion that the specified lock is held. It would be > good sam> for the IPv6 code to do likewise (you appear to be using > FOO_LOCK_CHECK sam> instead). > > Yes, I know. But, I don't want to make diffs against KAME as > possible. So, I didn't rename IP6Q_LOCK_CHECK to IP6Q_LOCK_ASSERT. We got there first? :) CHECK is not meaningful in the same way that ASSERT is. It also means one cannot grep for instances of macros because of this difference. I suggest that soon such differences against the KAME repository are going to be inconsequential and you are better to have code the conforms to local style and conventions than to the KAME repositoriy. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310220906.00993.sam>