On 24-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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.
I can do separate commits, that's not a problem.
> 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
>> 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.
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message