re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
> Module Name: src > Committed By: yamt > Date: Fri May 27 22:48:25 UTC 2011 > > Modified Files: > src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_driver.c > > Log Message: > don't forget to destroy mutex. thanks. .mrg.
Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel
On 5/31/11 7:06 PM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:53:21PM +0100, Julio Merino wrote: One thing is reorganizing the tests to match the tree structure, but the other is to move the tests right next to the source I don't quite understand the latter part. Why is this a bad thing? I always thought that having a single unified "tests"-directory was a benefit, not a disadvantage. What is the advantage? Just to make things clear, tests would still be installed to /usr/tests so that they can all be run at once. > Moving the tests "right next to the source" does not really solve any of the questions; for instance, where would system calls go? libc? sys/kern? Just like for manpages, it makes sense in some cases and it doesn't in others. I don't think it'd be bad to keep cross-layer/tool tests in a src/tests directory but move anything that is clearly tool-specific next to the source. (It's much easier for people to edit a cp_test.c file when they are editing cp.c if they see the file right there, whereas it is easy/annoying to have to hunt down the test file in a different subtree. I've used/seen both approaches, if that matters at all.) -- Julio Merino / @jmmv
Re: CVS commit: src/tests/kernel
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:53:21PM +0100, Julio Merino wrote: > One thing is reorganizing the tests to match the tree structure, but the > other is to move the tests right next to the source I don't quite understand the latter part. Why is this a bad thing? I always thought that having a single unified "tests"-directory was a benefit, not a disadvantage. Moving the tests "right next to the source" does not really solve any of the questions; for instance, where would system calls go? libc? sys/kern? > (like we did with manpages). This really never happened at full extent. Nor would it be desirable, and largely for the same reasons. - Jukka.
Re: CVS commit: src
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:07:12PM +, S.P.Zeidler wrote: > - introduce a limit for the routes accepted via IPv6 Router Advertisement: > a common 2 interface client will have 6, the default limit is 100 and > can be adjusted via sysctl As usual, can we have these noted in sysctl(7)? - Jukka.
