code review 751041: Create syscall_bsd.go for code used by Darwin and other...

Create syscall_bsd.go for code used by Darwin and other *BSDs

In this change I'd like to combine the common code that is
present in syscall_darwin.go and syscall_freebsd.go.  I
have three reasons for wanting to do this now:

1. reducing code duplication is nearly always good :-)
2. the duplication will get worse if I duplicate this code
   a third time for the NetBSD port I'm working on, which
   I need to do almost immediately
3. by making this change all in one lump and ignoring any
   commonality with the syscall_linux*.go files the diff
   is long but, I think, readable

In future it may be possible to cherry pick functions that
also apply to Linux and put them in (say) syscall_unix.go,
and of course some functions may diverge in future and have
to move out to OS or architecture specific files, but today
I want just the low hanging fruit.

Tested and passed on:

  Darwin (Snow Leopard, 10.6): amd64 and 386
  FreeBSD (8.0-RELEASE):       386 only(*)

(*) All my virtualisation software has stopped playing nice
with FreeBSD for the moment, so I don't have facilities to
test the amd64 port.  As the OS X port is OK and the diff
looks all right to my eyes I shall keep my fingers crossed.
If someone with a FreeBSD/amd64 system cares to test and
report I would be appreciative.

2010-03-27 update: I have replaced my virtualisation software, and have working FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/amd64 virtual machines again.

As I hoped (and expected -- programmers are optimists :-) the code built and passed all but the two currently known to fail tests on FreeBSD/amd64. I rechecked FreeBSD/i386 too: same results.

[giles, 2010-03-25 15:05:46]

Hello rsc (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change.

[giles, 2010-03-26 16:47:01]

In my initial submission I wrote:

> (*) All my virtualisation software has stopped playing nice
> with FreeBSD for the moment, so I don't have facilities to
> test the amd64 port.

I've now been able to test this, and have edited the isssue at

  http://codereview.appspot.com/751041/show

Just editing the isssue doesn't seem to send any new mail, so here's the
good news:

| 2010-03-27 update: I have replaced my virtualisation software, and
| have working FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/amd64 virtual machines again.
|
| As I hoped (and expected -- programmers are optimists :-) the code
| built and passed all but the two currently known to fail tests on
| FreeBSD/amd64. I rechecked FreeBSD/i386 too: same results.

No code changes were needed; the patches remain as they were.

Regards,

Giles

[rsc, 2010-03-26 20:23:57]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=5885c9d10f8e ***

syscall: Create syscall_bsd.go for code used by Darwin and other *BSDs

In this change I'd like to combine the common code that is
present in syscall_darwin.go and syscall_freebsd.go.  I
have three reasons for wanting to do this now:

1. reducing code duplication is nearly always good :-)
2. the duplication will get worse if I duplicate this code
   a third time for the NetBSD port I'm working on, which
   I need to do almost immediately
3. by making this change all in one lump and ignoring any
   commonality with the syscall_linux*.go files the diff
   is long but, I think, readable

In future it may be possible to cherry pick functions that
also apply to Linux and put them in (say) syscall_unix.go,
and of course some functions may diverge in future and have
to move out to OS or architecture specific files, but today
I want just the low hanging fruit.

Tested and passed on:

  Darwin (Snow Leopard, 10.6): amd64 and 386
  FreeBSD (8.0-RELEASE):       386 only(*)

(*) All my virtualisation software has stopped playing nice
with FreeBSD for the moment, so I don't have facilities to
test the amd64 port.  As the OS X port is OK and the diff
looks all right to my eyes I shall keep my fingers crossed.
If someone with a FreeBSD/amd64 system cares to test and
report I would be appreciative.

2010-03-27 update: I have replaced my virtualisation software, and have working
FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/amd64 virtual machines again.

As I hoped (and expected -- programmers are optimists :-) the code built and
passed all but the two currently known to fail tests on FreeBSD/amd64. I
rechecked FreeBSD/i386 too: same results.

R=rsc
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/751041

Committer: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>

[giles, 2010-03-27 03:39:05]

Hi Russ,

rsc@golang.org wrote:

> *** Submitted as
> http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=5885c9d10f8e ***
> 
> syscall: Create syscall_bsd.go for code used by Darwin and other *BSDs

Thanks for picking this up and committing it, and especially
for doing so so promptly.  Indeed, thanks for picking up all
the issues I've opened and responding speedily either by
committing them or by implementing something better.

I've cc'd everyone 'cos I believe you deserve public thanks,
and I hope your boss is reading. :-)

Best regards,

Giles