On 24-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote: > 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.
I can do separate commits, that's not a problem. > 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 >> > -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
