bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix some minor issues.


From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix some minor issues.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:42:59 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:11:41PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:

> * eth-multiplexer/device_impl.c (ds_device_open): Check if
> openstat flags are a subset of mode flags (not conversely).
> * eth-multiplexer/vdev.c (add_vdev): Copy name only if it
> is not NULL.

Why are you putting these two changes in one patch? They seem rather
orthogonal.

> While the second fix is obvious, I cannot explain for sure why do we
> need the first fix.  What I can tell exactly is that without it the
> .MASTER node does not work.  I think I will have to investigate into
> this issue further in the future.

Don't make changes you do not understand...

> diff --git a/eth-multiplexer/device_impl.c b/eth-multiplexer/device_impl.c
> index f9c8fc3..4b2d37d 100644
> --- a/eth-multiplexer/device_impl.c
> +++ b/eth-multiplexer/device_impl.c
> @@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ ds_device_open (mach_port_t master_port, mach_port_t 
> reply_port,
>    dev = (struct vether_device *) pi->po->np->nn->ln;
>    /* check the mode */
>    openstat = pi->po->openstat;
> -  if (mode & D_READ && !(openstat & O_READ))
> +  if ((openstat & O_READ) && !(mode & D_READ))
>      right_mode = 0;
> -  if (mode & D_WRITE && !(openstat & O_WRITE))
> +  if ((openstat & O_WRITE) && !(mode & D_WRITE))

The only actual change here seems to be the added parenthesis? Or am I
missing something?...

> diff --git a/eth-multiplexer/vdev.c b/eth-multiplexer/vdev.c
> index dac9802..6fb88d0 100644
> --- a/eth-multiplexer/vdev.c
> +++ b/eth-multiplexer/vdev.c
> @@ -135,7 +135,10 @@ add_vdev (char *name, int size,
>  
>    vdev->dev_port = ports_get_right (vdev);
>    ports_port_deref (vdev);
> -  strncpy (vdev->name, name, IFNAMSIZ);
> +  if (name)
> +    strncpy (vdev->name, name, IFNAMSIZ);
> +  else
> +    vdev->name[0] = 0;

I assume the NULL case happens for the root node only?

Is this really useful?...

-antrik-




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]