Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:59:58 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: sam@freebsd.org, perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review Message-ID: <200812141559.59329.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <20081213.130816.74659290.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200812122326.mBCNQX6w024511@repoman.freebsd.org> <200812131005.33499.hselasky@c2i.net> <20081213.130816.74659290.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 13 December 2008, Warner Losh wrote: > From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> > Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review > Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:05:32 +0100 > > > This is absoultely the wrong way to implement this. It is so wrong, I > don't even know where to begin. Consider this an 'over my dead body' > level of objection to this design. > We don't want to check a variable in the softc every time we do a htoleXX() ?? Do you have a better suggestion? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812141559.59329.hselasky>