On Sat, Aug 06 2022, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 02:19:31AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 05 2022, Sebastien Marie wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > When initially ported blist from DragonFlyBSD, we used custom type bsblk_t
>> > and
>> > bsbmp_t instead of t
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 02:19:31AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05 2022, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > When initially ported blist from DragonFlyBSD, we used custom type bsblk_t
> > and
> > bsbmp_t instead of the one used by DragonFlyBSD (swblk_t and u_swblk_t).
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2022 02:19:31 +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> > This seems fair, but maybe we should just zap the type from sys/types.h and
> > define it only in sys/blist.h, as done in DragonflyBSD?
>
> Fine with me. It is a non-standard type not used by base
On Sat, 06 Aug 2022 02:19:31 +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> This seems fair, but maybe we should just zap the type from sys/types.h and
> define it only in sys/blist.h, as done in DragonflyBSD?
Fine with me. It is a non-standard type not used by base.
- todd
On Fri, Aug 05 2022, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When initially ported blist from DragonFlyBSD, we used custom type bsblk_t
> and
> bsbmp_t instead of the one used by DragonFlyBSD (swblk_t and u_swblk_t).
>
> The reason was swblk_t is already defined on OpenBSD, and was incompatible
> with
On 05/08/22(Fri) 18:10, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When initially ported blist from DragonFlyBSD, we used custom type bsblk_t
> and
> bsbmp_t instead of the one used by DragonFlyBSD (swblk_t and u_swblk_t).
>
> The reason was swblk_t is already defined on OpenBSD, and was incompatible
>
Hi,
When initially ported blist from DragonFlyBSD, we used custom type bsblk_t and
bsbmp_t instead of the one used by DragonFlyBSD (swblk_t and u_swblk_t).
The reason was swblk_t is already defined on OpenBSD, and was incompatible with
blist (int32_t). It is defined, but not used (outside some