Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:06:17 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, 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: <3AB19154-C8EF-4372-B196-70917DCEFE31@cschubert.com> In-Reply-To: <20200115223805.GT39529@FreeBSD.org> References: <202001150605.00F65Kc8011526@repo.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2001150944330.1198@desktop> <20200115223805.GT39529@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On January 15, 2020 2:38:05 PM PST, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd=2Eorg> w= rote: >On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:44:53AM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: >J> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >J>=20 >J> > Author: glebius >J> > Date: Wed Jan 15 06:05:20 2020 >J> > New Revision: 356755 >J> > URL: https://svnweb=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/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=2E The macro reverses the >argument >J> > order of epoch_call(9) - first function, then its argument=2E NFC >J>=20 >J> Is there some practical impact of changing the argument order or >does it=20 >J> just seem more natural to you? > >It is just more natural=2E I'm suggesting to change prototype of >epoch_call() >to the same order as well=2E Yes=2E Are there any ports that might be affected, such as kms-drm or virtualbox= -ose-kmod? --=20 Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use=2E=20 Cy Schubert <Cy=2ESchubert@cschubert=2Ecom> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD=2Eorg> Web: https://www=2EFreeBSD=2Eorg The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few=2E Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AB19154-C8EF-4372-B196-70917DCEFE31>