Peter Memishian writes: > > > * 155-158: I'm a bit confused by this. Why not just put the > > > contract_latest(&ct) call directly in the `default' arm of > > > the swtich statement? > > > > I'm just reducing code duplication. The contract_latest needs to be > > done before ct_tmpl_clear and close, but those two things need to be > > done for the -1 (failure) and 0 (child) cases as well. > > It was unclear to me why contract_latest() needed to be called before > those two things while contract_abandon_id() could be done afterwards -- > but I didn't dig into the libcontract API details.
We're all building those grass runways on the island. Anyway, I think this is adequately covered by the "gee I wish I didn't have to do this" issue now documented in CR 6841077. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
