On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM, John Forte <John.Forte at sun.com> wrote: > It wasn't meant to be a review of the code, only a representation of where > the code will reside and a review for the new and modified makefiles. The > code itself was reviewed as each project integrated. In a lot of cases, that > is many years ago. > > Sorry if I caused any confusion here. This a merge effort to consolidate the > consolidations, not a new project(s) integration. >
So should the issues I pointed out be addressed, postponed or ignored ? > - John > > Cyril Plisko wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM, John Forte <John.Forte at sun.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Apologies all. The target did indeed change. It is now build 100. Sorry >>> about the lack of update on status. >>> >>> There is a webrev now available at: >>> >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jforte/6745433/ >>> >> >> >> Man, that is a big one. I am not sure how it is expected to be >> reviewed, bearing in mind the amount of code. >> Nevertheless here is a quasi-random shot at stmf_sbd driver. >> >> usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd.c:137 >> _init() doesn't return DDI_FAILURE. It returns 0 on success >> or error number on failure. DDI_FAILURE isn't actually >> an error number. >> >> usr/src/uts/common/io/comstar/lu/stmf_sbd/sbd.c:202 >> >> This is really a bad one. The first argument to getinfo() entry point >> (dip) >> is _not_ to be used. The getinfo(9E) manual page describes that >> in the case of DDI_INFO_DEVT2INSTANCE the `arg' is actually a dev_t >> and it should be used to extract the minor number to be mapped back >> to the instance. >> >> Quick check reveals that at least fct and stmf drivers suffer from the >> same problem >> in their getinfo(9E) entry point. >> >> This is by no means should be considered a full review neither for the >> whole webrev, nor >> for the sbd driver. I just happened to be a little bit acquanted with >> the sbd code due to my >> recent interest in it. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Cyril >> > > -- Regards, Cyril
