Re: m_pullup(9) regression

2016-11-08 Thread David Gwynne
> On 8 Nov 2016, at 20:01, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > semarie exposed a bug in m_pullup(9) while testing my diff to > automatically create lo(4) interfaces per rdomain. > > In the block below ``m'' is dereferenced without being previously set. > > Is the diff below correct?

Re: m_pullup(9) regression

2016-11-08 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > semarie exposed a bug in m_pullup(9) while testing my diff to > automatically create lo(4) interfaces per rdomain. > > In the block below ``m'' is dereferenced without being previously set. > Indeed. My test coverage wasn't

m_pullup(9) regression

2016-11-08 Thread Martin Pieuchot
semarie exposed a bug in m_pullup(9) while testing my diff to automatically create lo(4) interfaces per rdomain. In the block below ``m'' is dereferenced without being previously set. Is the diff below correct? Index: kern/uipc_mbuf.c