Peter Memishian wrote:
> > I'm not going to disagree with you too strongly, but I do note that the
> > man page claims:
> >
> > These macros assume the message itself is well formed, that
> > is: mp->b_datap->db_base <= mp->b_rptr <= mp->b_wptr <= mp-
> > >b_datap->db_lim.
>
> That claim should probably just be removed, as I think they will return
> the "right" answer regardless. I don't recall what prompted me to put
> that in there -- maybe paranoia.
>
> > The other problem with casting to (int), is that if the mblk were *very*
> > large, you might lose the high order bits.
>
> I'm not aware of any cases where an mblk is 2^31 or greater.
>
> > Maybe a better solution is to insert an assertion at the right point,
> > e.g. (casting and parenthesis omitted for clarity):
> >
> > #ifdef DEBUG
> > #define MBLKL(mp) ((mp->b_wptr >= mp->b_rptr) ? mp->b_wptr -
> > mp->b-rptr : ASSERT(mp->b_wptr >= mp->b_rptr)
> > #else
> > #define MBLKL(mp) ... use traditional definition here ...
> > #endif
>
> If we could go back in time, I think that'd be good. If we do it now, I
> think we'll be hitting assertions for months. Yes, it's good to find
> those cases, but many of them will end up being benign. I'd rather just
> deal with the lint problems and leave other rocks associated with MBLKL()
> and friends right-side-up for now.
>
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting.
Are you suggesting that I just drop this issue on the floor, and abandon
the attempt to clean this up?
-- Garrett
> --
> meem
> _______________________________________________
> driver-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
