I'm just saying that if this is the "simple p->p_ucred => td->td_ucred
change that do only that and do the rewrite in a separate commit..
I'm not against doing hte commit as is however.. it's only 3 small
the one that may be real is the other one I mention (I think in another
email) where the capability of coping with a NULL td is lost.
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> Apparently, On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:21:24AM -0800,
> Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/ucred.patch
> > the structural rewriting in kern_proc.c should be done as a separate
> > commit. (though I agree it should be done)
> > the structural rewriting in kern/sysv_*.c
> > could be done as a separate commit as well.
> > (I agree it is worth doing)
> > I'll let you get away with unp_listen() :-)
> I'd like to point out that in all cases that you mention, the original
> structure before the "giant pushdown" is being restored. A lot of structural
> rewriting occured in those commits. It was not done separately. I don't
> recall if the patches were posted for review, I certainly never saw them.
> This strikes me as a double standard.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message