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 nits.. 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. 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 structural > 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. > > Jake > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
