On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:27:47PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
A .. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
A lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
A Juniper way of doing things?
A
A That would definitely break Juniper as it doesn't
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:42 -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:59:41PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:27:47PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
T A .. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move
a
T A lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
T A Juniper way
On 2 Jun 2014, at 14:37, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
I can do the driveby on the wireless stack and drivers?
I'm having difficulty parsing the question,
On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:46 AM, George Neville-Neil g...@neville-neil.com wrote:
On 2 Jun 2014, at 14:37, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
I can do the
On 3 Jun 2014, at 06:01, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
I wonder if in the short term we should just use inlines for now, at
least so the methodization can get done without hurting people on
ARM/MIPS.
It's probably worth thinking a bit more carefully about the KPI, since it's
Marcel Moolenaar wrote this message on Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:49 -0700:
On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:46 AM, George Neville-Neil g...@neville-neil.com wrote:
On 2 Jun 2014, at 14:37, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 06:05:50PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
D On 3 Jun 2014, at 06:01, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
D
D I wonder if in the short term we should just use inlines for now, at
D least so the methodization can get done without hurting people on
D ARM/MIPS.
D
D It's
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:46:56PM -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote:
G Woo!
G
G Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
G I can do the driveby on the wireless stack and drivers?
G
G I'm having difficulty parsing the question, but I think you're asking
G for a
Author: marcel
Date: Mon Jun 2 17:54:39 2014
New Revision: 266974
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/266974
Log:
Introduce a procedural interface to the ifnet structure. The new
interface allows the ifnet structure to be defined as an opaque
type in NIC drivers. This then
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
I can do the driveby on the wireless stack and drivers?
I'll look at the script but since the wifi stack sits in between the
normal network stack layering, I just want to make sure I get all of
the right bits converted over
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
Juniper way of doing things?
-a
On 2 June 2014 11:26, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
I can do the driveby on the wireless stack and drivers?
I'm having difficulty parsing the question, but I think you're asking
for a howto with
On 2 June 2014 11:37, Marcel Moolenaar mar...@xcllnt.net wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Woo!
Would you mind doing up a 30 second what convert X to Y document so
I can do the driveby on the wireless stack and drivers?
I'm having difficulty
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
Juniper way of doing things?
That would definitely break Juniper as it doesn't give a
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:42 -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
Juniper way of doing
On 2 June 2014 12:03, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:42 -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over
Marcel,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Marcel Moolenaar mar...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Author: marcel
Date: Mon Jun 2 17:54:39 2014
New Revision: 266974
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/266974
Log:
Introduce a procedural interface to the ifnet structure. The new
interface
On Jun 2, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
Log:
Introduce a procedural interface to the ifnet structure.
*snip*
Could you say a little bit about why so few reviewers?
Sorry, my bad. The change was proposed and discussed on arch@ with
pointers to the diff.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:42:10AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the
Juniper way of
On 2 June 2014 18:29, Yonghyeon PYUN pyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:42:10AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
.. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a
lot of these accessor
21 matches
Mail list logo
