From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Jan 24 18:47:20 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D17EBE2B5 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:47:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B286A70E6B for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:47:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b21so10516103wme.4 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:47:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=fKo6PfS6lYVLMtVchDY1gZmuHIBQqS2QGbB2NHIpifc=; b=zLgE8bCFRjS7WosyX1K0DB/2yTO2urIbJKdH0S/ab0pEajkIfJ4ackYvDdKo8CCgOH p/kT4Re7T/wb7wz0aG/LlkR6dy+wReDUsAU0YWpp1VZTix8f4rLboDfl/D6NBgEZIZSA isxaJGxg/FxYI7xxdazoeXVA+3LMz83nIr8nXkpzVscUj4crZiIU8WjPDnmzV5oRIFkE s/PUaTXBng6XAOIVJrvPfR+KACTC9vD2LySYyx+EvQmbqyXTgEOXPgbPT26IL/0tQlL+ 9U0WYesvDCedcJ/AAa9AQ0hLbh/jDkuZR7VZk9ADY5Jn58TpFL4Uy8hPj8J6OdGM+Kd+ WsVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fKo6PfS6lYVLMtVchDY1gZmuHIBQqS2QGbB2NHIpifc=; b=fqrM1OyXpjHnkVLlzwL9WTtNL4AMPOsNFZ0uqPiBGfCsb5oLrF+He5ePEU/3crnCn5 5YSeN0iG2/DpXWJRKaLAMkKlQOKtxLoXMa73/gSh5fDTqSatQzUTH6/lyBo/Wvh8f0cu GyivShakoYY3/8ykZ18giXsJOQZ1lsUyPthbkJEVRhnruSVLE12fJAcP5wFuzUys5Z1k SUWQScF5eKUEb2jnB5Vh6xBH+ZlXyh6N2SZJjlc+mqXOGUKymWGn+7kq73rwGubmVKT8 0ipb/HloVrbpXIUczi0hXWVK4MzaFVbF+9EbDjx62LbzOM5OoHZQQXtUpMobxEGWG48v 4uoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcnR2/nRhsQAJ9uxoAYJVE8Lz9ds1hFhiAu5VgZst5ymEdqkDYY ixwLAIgZ+xcl7ms1NOkD8QFWTGzLY6cbyhkDfcwK6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2279SbX2cCTlGvKcNWEHNk8jqbNVImc8RkwIx/5ai91p7cD7rGTeUstBNczgfOKzO8cNn1WvMqBaI4wwPMi5PUo= X-Received: by 10.80.217.202 with SMTP id x10mr20039080edj.118.1516819637274; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:47:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.80.133.195 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2607:fb90:6e68:68b0:2c74:a381:7e69:9962] Received: by 10.80.133.195 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:47:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201801211542.w0LFgbsp005980@repo.freebsd.org> <51ff8aef-5660-7857-e4d5-12cdc77bc071@FreeBSD.org> <20180124182548.X1063@besplex.bde.org> <1516817048.42536.182.camel@freebsd.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:47:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BxSipvt4huAiNenqmBpCKPvBFFY Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r328218 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 arm/xscale/ixp425 arm64/arm64 cam cam/ctl compat/ndis dev/aacraid dev/advansys dev/ath dev/beri/virtio dev/bnxt dev/bwn dev/ciss dev/cxgbe/crypto dev/... To: "Conrad E. Meyer" Cc: src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:47:20 -0000 On Jan 24, 2018 11:33 AM, "Conrad Meyer" wrote: Bruce didn't get this wrong, you've just misread his (style / opinion) complaint as an actual bug (which is kind of the whole reason why it's hard to treat his complaints seriously): > size_t happens to have the same representation as u_long on all supported arches So yes, the check works on i386. I confused off_t and size_t, so much of what I said turns out not to be relevant. I'd be fine with just fixing the style issue, renaming WOULD_OVERFLOW to malloc_would_overrflow and using that for most of the NO_WAIT cases as a precheck.... Warner Warner Best, Conrad On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > Does mallocarray(10 ,1Gb) panic on i386? It does not. It should. > > Warner > > On Jan 24, 2018 11:20 AM, "Conrad Meyer" wrote: >> >> Please point out what in Bruce's rant is actually relevant. Again, I >> usually start reading them and get sidetracked in things that are >> opinions stated as fact, or outright incorrect. At which point, I >> give up on them. >> >