Re: [osol-code] code review: fix for bug 6691168

2008-09-08 Thread Yu Xiangning
Erik Trauschke wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:49 -0400, James Carlson wrote: >> Erik Trauschke writes: >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~erisch/nc_080907/ >> Does this pass "hg nits" using the current tool set? The changeset >> comments don't appear to be in the standard format, and there are >> s

Re: [osol-code] increase size of kernel message buffer

2008-09-08 Thread Gavin Maltby
Hi, Joachim Worringen wrote: >> Way back, msgbuf was a buffer of fixed size like 8K. These days >> it it the console streams logging device - see the source in >> uts/common/os/printf.c and uts/common/os/logsubr.c. > > O.k., thanks, but is there a way to increase the backlog of messages in > a

Re: [osol-code] code review: fix for bug 6691168

2008-09-08 Thread Vladimir Kotal
Erik Trauschke wrote: >> The evaluation in the CR doesn't have much information in it about the >> fix; your sponsor should probably help you with that, as it'll affect >> the quality of review comments you get. >> > ok, right now I don't know exactly what you are talking about. I'll look > into

Re: [osol-code] code review: fix for bug 6691168

2008-09-08 Thread James Carlson
Erik Trauschke writes: > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:49 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > 142: why "+1"? Port numbers can't be that long. > > +1 for the 0 terminating the string. It might be needed by the string > processing functions. The #define you're using already includes the 0 terminator. > >

Re: [osol-code] code review: fix for bug 6691168

2008-09-08 Thread Erik Trauschke
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:49 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Erik Trauschke writes: > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~erisch/nc_080907/ > > Does this pass "hg nits" using the current tool set? The changeset > comments don't appear to be in the standard format, and there are > still SCCS keywords here.

Re: [osol-code] code review: fix for bug 6691168

2008-09-08 Thread James Carlson
Erik Trauschke writes: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~erisch/nc_080907/ Does this pass "hg nits" using the current tool set? The changeset comments don't appear to be in the standard format, and there are still SCCS keywords here. It's unclear if it'll pass the other tests. The evaluation in the

Re: [osol-code] increase size of kernel message buffer

2008-09-08 Thread Joachim Worringen
Gavin Maltby wrote: > Hi, > > Joachim Worringen wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> I think I read somewhere (but can no longer find) how the kernel >> message buffer can be increased - would be helpful for ::msgbuf on a >> core dump. > > Way back, msgbuf was a buffer of fixed size like 8K. These days