Bruce:
Ok some comments in line and an updated patch... I went
through and reverted and manually cut out the "extra's" that
s9indent (note not my script something I got for gnn) did :-)
And I also have some comments for you :-D
On Dec 24, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
4) revamped my s9indent use.. I ran it and then patched back
in just its complaints about me... that way the other s9 issues
can stay in the file untouched by me :-D
Thanks, but it still has many of the style bugs already pointed out
and a few ne
All:
Ok here is the latest... this:
1) Incorporates Matt's changes
2) Goes with Matt's idea of adding an INP.
3) We now are holding the INP lock across the
call to the tunnel as well as the append. Since
the caller will have the INP they can unlock
if they need to :-)
4) revamped my s9
On Friday 12 December 2008 14:46:30 Randall Stewart wrote:
> Ok:
>
> Here is an updated patch it:
>
> 1) Fixes style9 issues
> 2) move to _t typedef
I won't get into this.
> 3) Allow multicast/broadcast to also be tunneled.
There seems to be an error with your patch. You RUNLOCK twice in some p
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
3) Removed an extra cr or two you pointed out.. hopefully got them all.
OK.
4) I disagree with you on the cast..
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
Well tell you what Bruce:
How about if I just run the WHOLE file through s9indent...
This will fix ALL my problems.. and of course "fix" the
rest of the file too..
Any automated conversion utility is very likely to introduce more bugs than
it fixes
Ian:
No problem what so ever...
My native style is CLOSE to style(9).. but it often is hard
for me to get "all" the little twists. And with SCTP we have
2 other primary developers and a few other contributors that work
on the windoz stuff and user space... so we depend on s9indent
exclusively.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Dec-13 13:55:18 +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> >I guess submitting patches for style(9) is considered a suicide method?
>
> Not necessarily but you need to have very good justification for any
> change. It's much easier to read a large corpus of
On 2008-Dec-13 13:55:18 +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
>I guess submitting patches for style(9) is considered a suicide method?
Not necessarily but you need to have very good justification for any
change. It's much easier to read a large corpus of code where the
code is all written in one style. I sus
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Bruce:
>
> So lets see:
>
> 1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
Personally: emoticons ARE punctuation; adding a period is totally anal.
> 2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
I gues
Bruce:
So lets see:
1) I went ahead and fixed the comments.. even added a ! instead of :-(
2) No problem using func_t.. changed to that.. seems nicer :-D
3) Removed an extra cr or two you pointed out.. hopefully got them all.
4) I disagree with you on the cast... its not ugly.. it prevents us
On Dec 12, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Max Laier wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2008 13:56:38 Randall Stewart wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
...
Another thing... kinda weird.. when I have this thing working with
SCTP an
Well tell you what Bruce:
How about if I just run the WHOLE file through s9indent...
This will fix ALL my problems.. and of course "fix" the
rest of the file too..
Unless you think its already in conformance (bet you
its not) :-)
R
On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 12
On Friday 12 December 2008 13:56:38 Randall Stewart wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
...
> Another thing... kinda weird.. when I have this thing working with
> SCTP and I
> let the SCTP stack try to initialize th
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Randall Stewart wrote:
Here is an updated patch it:
1) Fixes style9 issues (I hope.. I went back to vi and tried tabs :-0.. sigh
one of
these doys I will figure out why my .emacs settings just never cut it :-()
Fraid not.
% Index: netinet/udp_usrreq.c
% =
Ok:
Here is an updated patch it:
1) Fixes style9 issues (I hope.. I went back to vi and tried
tabs :-0.. sigh one of
these doys I will figure out why my .emacs settings just never cut
it :-()
2) move to _t typedef
3) Allow multicast/broadcast to also be tunneled.
4) Binding is now no lon
Bruce:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Hi,
I am missing context of what Max's suggestion was, do you have a
reference to an old email thread?
As to the context...
Nov 18 2008 10:01 (am Eastern) I started a thread
"Thinking about UDP and tunneling"
Style bugs:
* n
On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
All:
Ok here is what I have come up with.. going along the
lines of Max's suggestion.. its pretty clean I think.
Comments would be most welcome..
The only thing possibly a bit dodgy is
Hi,
I am missing context of what Max's suggestion was, do you have a
reference to an old email thread?
Style bugs:
* needs style(9) and whitespace cleanup.
* C typedefs should be suffixed with _t for consistency with other
kernel typedefs.
* Function typedefs usually named like foo_func_t (s
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
> All:
>
> Ok here is what I have come up with.. going along the
> lines of Max's suggestion.. its pretty clean I think.
>
> Comments would be most welcome..
>
> The only thing possibly a bit dodgy is that
>
> 1) UDP has no per-protocol b
20 matches
Mail list logo
