see GH PR683

update code style, see https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/683

In D38806#883297, @imp wrote:

In D38806#883289, @fbsd_paepcke.de wrote:

In D38806#883259, @imp wrote:

I fixed the build issues, but look forward to what we need to do to make things work.

yes, but if we need for touch > 9 files, that mange *exact* the same two static tables with exact the same content (if we ignore the several typos), then it needs an cleanup / refactor first.

Agreed. I fixed the immediate issue, but the problem you points out lingers. There's time for you to do the cleanup / refactor now that the
tree builds again after I broke it last night.

In D38806#883259, @imp wrote:

I fixed the build issues, but look forward to what we need to do to make things work.

needs a refacor, too many corners to clean up, ignor

... hope got them all now.

[...] It would be possible to add another flag to the existing um_flags word with the semantic that the filesystem can be mounted only as read-only (UM_READONLY). Of course it would still be possible for the superuser to clear this flag but it takes slightly more effort.

But the flags are all reversible via common base userland tools (runlevel/offline) similar to a simple r/w re-mount. So its no a bug, the on-disk written flag tracks only the last known r/w state, but does not enforces a state?

Can you double check that the diff you uploaded is the one you intended? This comment doesn't match the ukbd.4 changes in this review.

I can confirm that FreeBSD arm32 armv7 is unusable/broken since 6926e2699ae5 and this diff *fixes* it!

In D38603#880776, @imp wrote:

In D38603#880768, @fbsd_paepcke.de wrote:

updates done for atkbc.4 and UPDATING as requested,
added (optional) NOTES entries as proposal

Can you double check that the diff you uploaded is the one you intended? This comment doesn't match the ukbd.4 changes in this review.

updates done for atkbc.4 and UPDATING as requested,
added (optional) NOTES entries as proposal

Updates:

• rename existing instances of KB_DELAY* to KBD_DELAY and expose them via options
• add docu

... should I split it into two? (If not, who can push?)

In D38404#874948, @imp wrote:

looks sane... but why the extra device?

typo

Looking forward to it. Thanks for everything so far.

In D38383#872620, @imp wrote:

In D38383#872617, @imp wrote:

Oh! One more thing...

Can you update share/man/man4/u3g.4 to include these changes please?

I'm unsure how to list these in the man page...

Thanks for the update! Seems they keep the async & xxh refactor/speed bump for the next release cycle.