From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 12:40:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6871065672 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9B18FC1A for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB9Ce9Y4093144 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pB9Ce9Lv093143; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:40:09 GMT Message-Id: <201112091240.pB9Ce9Lv093143@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Jaakko Heinonen Cc: Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jaakko Heinonen List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:40:09 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jaakko Heinonen To: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Petr Salinger , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, mdf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:36:17 +0200 On 2011-12-09, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > Could we just remove the error check from sbuf_len()? (patch below) I > > have Cc'd more people. > > Why? As I wrote existing code depends on sbuf_len() to return the actual length regardless of the error status after sbuf_finish(). I am not willing to through all code using sbufs to check where it causes problems. phk@ asserts that r222004 is correct. -- Jaakko