From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 27 15:22:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29076 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:22:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29044 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA09264; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpdLg9254; Wed Jan 27 23:13:01 1999 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:12:53 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Matthew Dillon cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bug in devfs_strategy() ??? In-Reply-To: <199901272201.OAA61764@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG yes, though luckily it turns out to not matter. except possibly on tapes.. the 2nd call in the raw case will probably finish immediatly as the B_DONE flag will be set. On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Aren't there are few BREAK statements missing from this ? > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > > > static int > devfs_strategy(struct vop_strategy_args *ap) > { > ... > switch (ap->a_vp->v_type) { > case VCHR: > (*dnp->by.Cdev.cdevsw->d_strategy)(bp); > case VBLK: > (*dnp->by.Bdev.bdevsw->d_strategy)(bp); > } > return (0); > } > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message