From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 14:40:09 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 4E6771065675 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:40:09 +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 3E4CB8FC14 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:40:09 +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 pB9Ee9N3003284 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:40:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pB9Ee9gU003283; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:40:09 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:40:09 GMT Message-Id: <201112091440.pB9Ee9gU003283@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 14:40:09 -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 16:35:30 +0200 On 2011-12-09, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Jaakko Heinonen writes: > > 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. > > What if the sbuf is in a state where asking for its length is > meaningless? Could you give an example about such state? Isn't the length first initialized to zero and then increased only when byte(s) has been successfully appended to the buffer? sbuf_len() has worked for unfinished buffers since r71724. -- Jaakko