On 2020/04/23 10:31, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Todd C. Miller <todd.mil...@sudo.ws> wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > > > > > My questions boil down to: > > > > > > 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement > > > already) > > > > > > 2) Is STAILQ more ubiqitous? (I suspect so) > > > > STAILQ is supported by: FreeBSD, macOS, NetBSD, Solaris, Linux (via libbsd) > > SIMPLEQ is supported by: NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris > > > > So based on a quick survey, STAILQ is more ubiqitous. > > > > > 3) Can upstream be convinced to use STAILQ instead? > > > > Upstream *is* using STAILQ, we're the ones who only support SIMPLEQ. > > > > Personally, I would rather replace SIMPLEQ with STAILQ in our code, > > though I suspect that is not a popular opinion here. When I see > > STAILQ I know exactly what it means and it is consistent with the > > other macros. I find that the SIMPLEQ naming conveys very little > > meaning and I always have to go check to see if it is singly or > > doubly linked. Of course, like most things, you get used to the > > way things are... > > I would be happy wit such unification. > > Are there any objectors? > > (finishing this might need to be put off for about a month, tho) >
No objection, after we're done with release builds I can do a test ports build for this.
