In article <20190122173641.ga26...@irregular-apocalypse.k.bsd.de>,
Christoph Badura wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:04PM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:32:48AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>> > > > @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
>> > > >const char *bootname =
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:44:04PM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:32:48AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > > > @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
> > > > const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
> > > > size_t len = strlen(bootname);
> > > >
> > > > + if (bdv
In article <24279.1548106...@splode.eterna.com.au>,
matthew green wrote:
>> > @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
>> >const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
>> >size_t len = strlen(bootname);
>> >
>> > + if (bdv == NULL)
>> > + return 0;
>> > +
>>
>> This looked suspicious, even before I
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:32:48AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > > @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
> > > const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
> > > size_t len = strlen(bootname);
> > >
> > > + if (bdv == NULL)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> >
> > This looked suspicious, even before I read
> >>> @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
> >>> const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
> >>> size_t len = strlen(bootname);
> >>>
> >>> + if (bdv == NULL)
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>
> >> This looked suspicious, even before I read the code.
> >>
> >> The question is if it is ever legitimate for
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, matthew green wrote:
@@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
size_t len = strlen(bootname);
+ if (bdv == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
This looked suspicious, even before I read the code.
The question is if it is ever
Christoph Badura writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Separetaly from debug code being careful, if it's a rule that bdv can't
>> be NULL, it's just as well to put in a KASSERT. Then we'll find out
>> where that isn't true and can fix it.
>
> I must not be
> > @@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
> > const char *bootname = device_xname(bdv);
> > size_t len = strlen(bootname);
> >
> > + if (bdv == NULL)
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> This looked suspicious, even before I read the code.
>
> The question is if it is ever legitimate for bdv to be
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:24:49PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Separetaly from debug code being careful, if it's a rule that bdv can't
> be NULL, it's just as well to put in a KASSERT. Then we'll find out
> where that isn't true and can fix it.
I must not be getting something. If
Christoph Badura writes:
>> > + if (bdv == NULL)
>> > + return 0;
>> > +
>>
>> This looked suspicious, even before I read the code.
>> The question is if it is ever legitimate for bdv to be NULL.
>
> That is an excellent point. The short answer is, no it isn't. And it
> never was
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:36:37PM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> I think the following is better. Compile-tested only for both #ifdef
> conditions, but I think that is OK.
Ugh. I forgot to put a comment on that function. How about this:
/*
* Provide a wrapper around rf_containsboot that
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:42:10AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Christoph Badura writes:
> > Index: rf_netbsdkintf.c
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_netbsdkintf.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.356
> > diff -u
Christoph Badura writes:
> Here is some instrumentation I found useful during my recent debugging.
> If there are no objections, I'd like to commit soon.
>
> The change to rf_containsroot() simplifies the second DPRINTF that I added.
>
> Index: rf_netbsdkintf.c
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
