In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040611084726.64565D-100000_at_fledge.watson.org>, Robe rt Watson writes: >It looks reasonable to me, although bde will no doubt point out there are >a couple of places where function declarations get too long for a line, >comments don't line up, etc. He already did :-) >Do you plan to eliminate udev_t in a following step and return it to >dev_t? There are some positive and negative aspecets of doing so relating >to cross-platform compatibility, one suspects, but it would be nice for >consistency purposes now that the kernel dev_t is gone. Yes, that is the second half of this change. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.Received on Fri Jun 11 2004 - 12:07:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:56 UTC