Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:

Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:

Thanks for reviewing this again.  I took most of your
input.  For the questions you had or the things I
didn't take, I have responded below.

Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- could you propegate back your common changes to the original file?
I don't want to complicate this project with the additional
changes to the sn1 brand and the corresponding additional testing.
I filed bug:

6888642 sn1 brand cleanup

so that we can track that work as a separate integration.

sigh.  are you commiting to this work?  the sn1 brand always get's
neglected (says the guy who spent too much time fixing it up to be a
real brand).
Sure.  I just don't want these coupled together.

then please make sure to update the bug with a detailed list of all the
differences between the two.  (should be easy since i already hilighted
all the differences in my code review comments.)

Sure.  I used the file list from your comments but I'll go ahead
and paste all of them in.


- in s10_zone, in the ZONE_GETATTR() case, why isn't S10_TRUSS_POINT_5
  used instead of S10_TRUSS_POINT_3?
Because the first 3 parameters are required for a truss point. That is,
S10_TRUSS_POINT_0 takes 3 parameters, S10_TRUSS_POINT_3 takes 6, which
is the number of parameters we're passing.

but i thought the caller passed in 4 parameters. (in addition to the
cmd.)  why are you not printing out "buf" and "bufsize"?
Those parameters aren't that useful for debugging.  I can add them
if you'd like.

yes please.  otherwise some anal retentive person who is debugging a
problem will get distracted by the fact that the buf pointer and size
values are invalid.

Will do.


zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to