Project

General

Profile

Bug #1702

[PATCH] SHOW_BUSYBUFS

Added by ccna.syl almost 10 years ago. Updated almost 10 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Hi,

Here is a patch to move SHOW_BUSYBUFS option in platform independant
options file.

Cheers,

---
sys/conf/options | 1 +
sys/platform/pc32/conf/options | 1 -
sys/platform/pc64/conf/options | 1 -
sys/platform/vkernel/conf/options | 1 -
4 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sys/conf/options b/sys/conf/options
index 6c77fa7..fe143af 100644
--- a/sys/conf/options
+++ b/sys/conf/options
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ UCONSOLE
ICMP_BANDLIM
VFS_AIO
DIRECTIO opt_directio.h
+SHOW_BUSYBUFS

# POSIX kernel options
P1003_1B opt_posix.h
diff --git a/sys/platform/pc32/conf/options b/sys/platform/pc32/conf/options
index dbb728b..7e49814 100644
--- a/sys/platform/pc32/conf/options
+++ b/sys/platform/pc32/conf/options
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ MATH_EMULATE opt_math_emulate.h
PMAP_SHPGPERPROC opt_pmap.h
PPC_PROBE_CHIPSET opt_ppc.h
PPC_DEBUG opt_ppc.h
-SHOW_BUSYBUFS
PANIC_REBOOT_WAIT_TIME opt_panic.h
MAXMEM
PERFMON opt_perfmon.h
diff --git a/sys/platform/pc64/conf/options b/sys/platform/pc64/conf/options
index 19f9451..2ed98bc 100644
--- a/sys/platform/pc64/conf/options
+++ b/sys/platform/pc64/conf/options
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ DISABLE_PSE
PMAP_SHPGPERPROC opt_pmap.h
PPC_PROBE_CHIPSET opt_ppc.h
PPC_DEBUG opt_ppc.h
-SHOW_BUSYBUFS
PANIC_REBOOT_WAIT_TIME opt_panic.h
MAXMEM
PERFMON opt_perfmon.h
diff --git a/sys/platform/vkernel/conf/options
b/sys/platform/vkernel/conf/options
index 60f7c89..dc6db0e 100644
--- a/sys/platform/vkernel/conf/options
+++ b/sys/platform/vkernel/conf/options
@@ -9,6 +9,5 @@ I686_CPU opt_global.h

#
#
-SHOW_BUSYBUFS
PANIC_REBOOT_WAIT_TIME opt_panic.h

History

#1

Updated by alexh almost 10 years ago

Is there any point in all these patches? Care to share the reasoning behind them? Also please don't submit 20 10-line patches, but rather only one, as long as the reasoning remains the same.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

#2

Updated by ccna.syl almost 10 years ago

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Alex Hornung <> wrote:
> Is there any point in all these patches? Care to share the reasoning behind them? Also please don't submit 20 10-line patches, but rather only one, as long as the reasoning remains the same.
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

I have start to implement a platform/xen32 and for the moment I try to
use config with the less options possible (to simplify the xen port).

I have seen that SHOW_BUSYBUFS and PANIC_REBOOT_WAIT_TIME options are
shared by all platforms so I think these options must be in the
generic options file.

Cheers,
--
Sylvestre Gallon

#3

Updated by aoiko almost 10 years ago

Alex Hornung wrote:
> Is there any point in all these patches? Care to share the reasoning
> behind them? Also please don't submit 20 10-line patches, but rather
> only one, as long as the reasoning remains the same.

If the reasoning is "move shared options to platform independent options
file", sure. Otherwise, I'd much prefer each logical change in a
separate patch. The smaller and more self-contained the better.

That said, flooding submit@ is not the best approach IMHO. You can
publish your patch series as a git branch on a leaf repo (or anywhere
else you want to put it).

Aggelos

#4

Updated by ccna.syl almost 10 years ago

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Aggelos Economopoulos (via DragonFly
issue tracker) <> wrote:
>
> Aggelos Economopoulos <> added the comment:
>
> Alex Hornung wrote:
>> Is there any point in all these patches? Care to share the reasoning
>> behind them? Also please don't submit 20 10-line patches, but rather
>> only one, as long as the reasoning remains the same.
>
> If the reasoning is "move shared options to platform independent options
> file", sure. Otherwise, I'd much prefer each logical change in a
> separate patch. The smaller and more self-contained the better.
>
> That said, flooding submit@ is not the best approach IMHO. You can
> publish your patch series as a git branch on a leaf repo (or anywhere
> else you want to put it).
>
> Aggelos
>

Ok,

I will try to not flood submit@ and to add better description in my messages :)

Cheers,

#5

Updated by justin almost 10 years ago

On Wed, March 24, 2010 7:45 am, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
> Alex Hornung wrote:
>> Is there any point in all these patches? Care to share the reasoning
>> behind them? Also please don't submit 20 10-line patches, but rather
>> only one, as long as the reasoning remains the same.
>
> If the reasoning is "move shared options to platform independent options
> file", sure. Otherwise, I'd much prefer each logical change in a
> separate patch. The smaller and more self-contained the better.
>
> That said, flooding submit@ is not the best approach IMHO. You can
> publish your patch series as a git branch on a leaf repo (or anywhere
> else you want to put it).

My bad; I was the one who said, "oh, smaller changes are better and sure
go ahead and mail them in". My conflicting directions aren't helpful to
new students; sorry, Sylvestre.

Also available in: Atom PDF