From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 22 16:10:05 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1D816A46D
	for <freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:05 +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 508FA13C4D5
	for <freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0MGA445008379
	for <freebsd-doc@freefall.freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:04 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m0MGA4Dw008378;
	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:04 GMT
Message-Id: <200801221610.m0MGA4Dw008378@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: docs/114139: mbuf(9) has misleading comments on M_DONTWAIT and
 M_TRYWAIT
X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
List-Id: Documentation project <freebsd-doc.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc>,
	<mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc>,
	<mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:10:05 -0000

The following reply was made to PR docs/114139; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: docs/114139: mbuf(9) has misleading comments on M_DONTWAIT and
 M_TRYWAIT
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:06:00 -0500

 Hi,
 
 I'm not completely sure on the first point, I think the missing
 context not copied from mbuf(9) does point out why they are
 different.  Compare mbuf.9 to sys/mbuf.h and double check.
 
 For the second point, I sent this patch to another developer for
 review:
 
 Index: mbuf.9
 ===================================================================
 RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/man/man9/mbuf.9,v
 retrieving revision 1.65
 diff -u -u -r1.65 mbuf.9
 --- mbuf.9	26 Feb 2007 15:17:19 -0000	1.65
 +++ mbuf.9	22 Jan 2008 11:52:59 -0000
 @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
  .\"
  .\" $FreeBSD: src/share/man/man9/mbuf.9,v 1.65 2007/02/26 15:17:19 bms Exp $
  .\"
 -.Dd February 26, 2007
 +.Dd January 22, 2008
  .Dt MBUF 9
  .Os
  .\"
 @@ -363,12 +363,8 @@
  .Fa how
  is set to
  .Dv M_TRYWAIT ,
 -a failed allocation will result in the caller being put
 -to sleep for a designated
 -kern.ipc.mbuf_wait
 -.Xr ( sysctl 8
 -tunable)
 -number of ticks.
 +a failed allocation will result in the caller blocking until
 +resources are available and thus never return NULL.
  A number of other functions and macros related to
  .Vt mbufs
  have the same argument because they may
 
 Thanks,
 -- 
 Tom Rhodes