From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26878 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2005 19:48:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26434 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2005 19:47:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.9) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Mar 2005 19:47:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 11228 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2005 19:47:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2005 19:47:48 -0000 Message-ID: <42446ADC.108@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:48:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Refactor ser-unix.c References: <200503220817.j2M8H3Aw024182@sethra.codesourcery.com> <200503251849.j2PInBBr029982@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200503251849.j2PInBBr029982@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > In order to keep the patch easiser to read, I did not rename the > ser-base.c routines with a ser_base prefix instead of the current > ser_unix prefix, but I would like to make that change before > check-in. > > Yes, please; the ser_unix prefix doesn't really make sense for the > functions in set-base.c. I presume is also makes sense to drop the > _nop_ in that operation. You may check in this patch and than do the > rename in a seperate patch, or do it both at once. Consider the > rename patch pre-approved. I checked in the original patch, and will now work on the renaming patch. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304