Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:06:41 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Todd Miller <Todd.Miller@sparta.com> Cc: Todd Miller <millert@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 93627 for review Message-ID: <200603201406.43861.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CB5AEECF-F062-4C11-832A-0BBCC8A23C6A@sparta.com> References: <200603201525.k2KFPkaO012910@repoman.freebsd.org> <CB5AEECF-F062-4C11-832A-0BBCC8A23C6A@sparta.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 20 March 2006 10:50, Todd Miller wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Todd Miller wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=93627 > > > > Change 93627 by millert@millert_p3 on 2006/03/20 15:25:46 > > > > In fdcopy() set newfdp->fd_freefile after the first loop > > over fdp instead of the loop over newfdp. This means we > > never enter fdused() with fd_freefile == -1. It also fixes > > a bug when fdp->fd_lastfile == -1. Previously, if > > fdp->fd_lastfile was -1 newfdp->fd_freefile would get set > > to 1 instead of 0 since newfdp->fd_lastfile is initialized > > to 0 and newfdp->fd_freefile will not have been set in the > > first loop (which doesn't run at all in this case). > > It's not clear why newfdp->fd_freefile is -1 at this point. > > That last line should have read: > It's not clear why newfdp->fd_lastfile is -1 at this point. csjp@ just fixed this in FreeBSD head. I also had the change to move the setting of cmask up earlier to avoid an extra lock/unlock pair in one of my p4 branches as well. :) You'll probably want to make sure you're changes are in sync with what csjp@ just committed to make the merge in the future less exciting. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603201406.43861.jhb>