On 21.09.2013 16:13:24, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Marin Ramesa, le Tue 17 Sep 2013 19:35:03 +0200, a écrit : > > @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ device_open(reply_port, reply_port_type, mode, > > name, device_p) > > ipc_port_t reply_port; > > mach_msg_type_name_t reply_port_type; > > dev_mode_t mode; > > - char * name; > > + char *name; > > device_t *device_p; /* out */ > > As odd as it may seem, I believe we want to keep char * name. The > idea is that it's not a pointer on a char, but a character string. > > Samuel
Yes, you're right. I guess the original authors had their own reasons. I will leave the coding style alone. I will also leave the removal of the register keyword to the next newcomer or a student to practice sending patches. Btw, if you find the time, please, if you can, take a quick look at my futex patch. I'm wondering if my code is heading in the right direction (as I would like to implement all the ideas mentioned in (1)), so I could use some comments. (1) http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/hurd-devel/2003-02/msg00002.html
