Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:52:16 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_timeout.c src/sys/sys callout.h src/share/man/man9 timeout.9 Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040407004244.03f85e80@imap.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20040406162703.H30263@root.org> References: <20040406230958.C01C616A545@hub.freebsd.org> <20040406162703.H30263@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 00:32 07/04/2004, Nate Lawson wrote:
>For this one, you can move the comment to above the "if" statement and add
>a blank line before it. It's usually best to comment on the whole block
>above the if statement rather than within it.
Hmm... those comments are written in the context of the "if" blocks. Does
it really make sense to replace
if(foo) {
/* Bar */
...
with
/* If foo, then bar */
if(foo) {
...
I'm generally happy to make style changes, but this seems like a rather
peculiar change to make.
>> int callout_stop(struct callout *);
>> +#define callout_stop(c) _callout_stop_safe(c, 0)
>
>The goal here is to keep binary compatibility (multiple defines of
>callout_stop)?
The goal was binary compatibility; the callout_stop prototype was
still here because gcc complained while compiling kern_timeout.c
otherwise. If there's a better solution, please let me know.
>Are you
>going to remove that shim at some point? Perhaps a BURN_BRIDGES or
>GONE_IN_6 ifdef would be appropriate for that.
I think this shim can be removed as soon as any modules which know
about callout_stop have been recompiled; I doubt it will take long
before someone makes a change which requires that to happen. :-)
Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040407004244.03f85e80>