From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb 18 08:43:39 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F956106564A;
	Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED1E8FC0C;
	Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id EC4601A3C4D; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:43:38 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20120218084338.GG31998@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20120218074655.GF31998@elvis.mu.org>
	<20791.1329554045@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20791.1329554045@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org,
	current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Last call: removing the INT_MAX limit on max i/o size
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:43:39 -0000

* Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> [120218 00:34] wrote:
> In message <20120218074655.GF31998@elvis.mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
> 
> >I always wonder if it's worth defining a type for this, resid_t or
> >something,
> 
> Wouldn't that naturally be size_t ?

I think that makes sense.  I was thinking along the lines of making
sure that functions that take a resid_t aren't actually being
passed the wrong ssize_t, but really that's probably too much fence
and just would obfuscate things.

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
.- VMOA #5191, 03 vmax, 92 gs500, 85 ch250, 07 zx10
.- FreeBSD committer