Hello,
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:41:53AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
>
> t could be NULL here. just do the unit check inside the loop?
>
> >
> > if (t->pft_unit != unit)
> > return (NULL);
> >
> > return (t);
> > }
> >
> > just return NULL on unit
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:45:08PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 06:51:52AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
>
> > > is that kind of check in KASSET() something you have on your mind?
> > > perhaps I can trade KASSERT() to regular code:
> > >
> > >
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 06:51:52AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > is that kind of check in KASSET() something you have on your mind?
> > perhaps I can trade KASSERT() to regular code:
> >
> > if (t->pft_unit != minor(dev))
> > return (EPERM);
>
> i would pass the
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 01:47:31PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:37:58AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > fail:
> > > - if (flags & FWRITE)
> > > - rw_exit_write(_rw);
> > > - else
> > > - rw_exit_read(_rw);
> > > +
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:51:26AM +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:47 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > @@ -293,6 +300,28 @@ pfopen(dev_t dev, int flags, int fmt, struct proc *p)
> > ??int
> > ??pfclose(dev_t dev, int flags, int fmt, struct proc *p)
> > ??{
> >
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:47 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:37:58AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > fail:
> > > - if (flags & FWRITE)
> > > - rw_exit_write(_rw);
> > > - else
> > > - rw_exit_read(_rw);
> > > +
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:37:58AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > fail:
> > - if (flags & FWRITE)
> > - rw_exit_write(_rw);
> > - else
> > - rw_exit_read(_rw);
> > + rw_exit_write(_rw);
>
> i dont think having the open mode flags affect whether you take a
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:49:18AM +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 19:42 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 07:48:18AM +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 00:39 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This is the
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 19:42 +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 07:48:18AM +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 00:39 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is the second diff. It introduces a transaction (pf_trans).
> > > It's more or
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 07:48:18AM +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 00:39 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is the second diff. It introduces a transaction (pf_trans).
> > It's more or less diff with dead code.
> >
> > It's still worth to note those two
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 00:39 +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is the second diff. It introduces a transaction (pf_trans).
> It's more or less diff with dead code.
>
> It's still worth to note those two chunks in this diff:
>
> @@ -1142,10 +1172,7 @@ pfioctl(dev_t dev, u_long
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:39:00AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is the second diff. It introduces a transaction (pf_trans).
> It's more or less diff with dead code.
>
> It's still worth to note those two chunks in this diff:
>
> @@ -1142,10 +1172,7 @@ pfioctl(dev_t dev,
Hello,
This is the second diff. It introduces a transaction (pf_trans).
It's more or less diff with dead code.
It's still worth to note those two chunks in this diff:
@@ -1142,10 +1172,7 @@ pfioctl(dev_t dev, u_long cmd, caddr_t addr, int flags,
struct proc *p)
return
13 matches
Mail list logo
