Subject: Re: curproc removal (NFS, ...)
To: Jonathan Stone <email@example.com>
From: Daniel Carosone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/25/2004 15:29:44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >because a caller doesn't know for what so_send will use the proc pointer
> >as Matthias pointed, it can't decide which proc pointer to pass.
> >i called it as 'a random proc pointer'.
> >(probably 'a pointer to a random proc' is more clear.)
My paraphrasing of this question goes like this:
"I am a caller of the so_send (and similar) API, which wants a proc *.
What proc * should I pass? I don't happen to have an obvious choice
for a proc * to give it that makes sense in my context. I don't want
to use curproc as a cop-out, because I'm trying to help that die, and
for all I know it's as bad a choice as any other ad-hoc proc *
What would help me make the decision:
- what it needs from the proc * and how it is used
- whether it can be NULL and under what circumstances
- making it use something more direct and purpose-specific than
indirection through a proc *, which I might have (your list)
So, I think you are agreeing at cross purposes :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----