I think my analysis here applies to this instance as well:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=145377854103866&w=2
I also changed the chained condition to a switch statement because I
find that more readable.
Thanks for your time,
Michael
Index: ifwatchd.c
=
Just a little simplification - thought I'd share.
Index: sys/arch/hpcarm/dev/sed_saip.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/arch/hpcarm/dev/sed_saip.c,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -p -r1.26 sed_saip.c
--- sys/arch/hpcarm/dev/sed_sai
Is it decided that free/kern_free shouldn't be NULL-safe? That seems odd
and potentially risky to me, especially because POSIX specifies
userland's free() as NULL-safe. This change would also simplify the
kernel code by removing innumerable NULL checks.
I know that Linux and OpenBSD have NULL-safe
Index: share/man/man9/module.9
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/share/man/man9/module.9,v
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -p -r1.37 module.9
--- share/man/man9/module.9 4 Jun 2015 01:58:30 - 1.37
+++ share/man/man9/module.9
Index: share/man/man7/module.7
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/share/man/man7/module.7,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 module.7
--- share/man/man7/module.7 30 Jun 2011 20:09:15 - 1.3
+++ share/man/man7/module.7 2
Michael McConville wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> > > I suspect that this preproc condition isn't necessary anymore? It's in
> > > sys/sys/device.h:246.
> >
> > We requir
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:15:34PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> > I suspect that this preproc condition isn't necessary anymore? It's in
> > sys/sys/device.h:246.
>
> We require C99 support for the kernel, so no, just use FMA.
Wo
I suspect that this preproc condition isn't necessary anymore? It's in
sys/sys/device.h:246.
/*
* Description of an interface attribute, provided by potential
* parent device drivers, referred to by child device configuration data.
*/
struct cfiattrdata {
const char *ci_name;
i
