On 23/04/2020 16:18, Todd C. Miller wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:40:15 +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
I don't know if it is useful to anyone else but it is required by lsquic, a
library that implements QUIC / HTTP3.
sniproxy port also uses STAILQ_*, there is a patch in the port for the
On 2020/04/23 10:31, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Todd C. Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> >
> > > My questions boil down to:
> > >
> > > 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement
> > > already)
> > >
> > > 2) Is STAILQ more
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:31:53AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I would be happy wit such unification.
>
> Are there any objectors?
>
> (finishing this might need to be put off for about a month, tho)
>
I am currently building base with a diff that converts SIMPLEQ_* to STAILQ_*
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
>
> > My questions boil down to:
> >
> > 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement
> > already)
> >
> > 2) Is STAILQ more ubiqitous? (I suspect so)
>
> STAILQ is supported by:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> My questions boil down to:
>
> 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement already)
>
> 2) Is STAILQ more ubiqitous? (I suspect so)
STAILQ is supported by: FreeBSD, macOS, NetBSD, Solaris, Linux (via libbsd)
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:35:38 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
>
> > SIMPLEQ arrived in 1997. Didn't it go to other systems? Did others
> > invent STAIL on their own?
>
> FreeBSD added STAILQ (along with SLIST) in 1996.
My questions boil down to:
1) When are too many
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:35:38 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> SIMPLEQ arrived in 1997. Didn't it go to other systems? Did others
> invent STAIL on their own?
FreeBSD added STAILQ (along with SLIST) in 1996.
- todd
Denis Fondras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:18:16AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > Singly-linked tail queues are functionally equivalent to the "simple
> > queues" we already have. Do we really need two implementations of
> > what are effectively the same thing or should we just define
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:18:16AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> Singly-linked tail queues are functionally equivalent to the "simple
> queues" we already have. Do we really need two implementations of
> what are effectively the same thing or should we just define STAIL_*
> in terms of SIMPLEQ_*
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:40:15 +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
> I don't know if it is useful to anyone else but it is required by lsquic, a
> library that implements QUIC / HTTP3.
Singly-linked tail queues are functionally equivalent to the "simple
queues" we already have. Do we really need two
10 matches
Mail list logo
