Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:53:33 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 frag6.c Message-ID: <yge7k2xfev6.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <200310220845.31046.sam@errno.com> References: <200310221532.h9MFWusl093984@repoman.freebsd.org> <200310220845.31046.sam@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@bisd.hitachi.co.jp ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yge7k2xfev6.wl%ume>