From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug 11 23:52:08 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF401065675;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com)
Received: from parsely.rain.com (parsely.rain.com [199.26.172.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6CE8FC19;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:52:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com)
Received: from sopwith.solgatos.com (uucp@localhost)
	by parsely.rain.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with UUCP id m7BNpvx31706;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com)
Received: from localhost by sopwith.solgatos.com (8.8.8/6.24)
	id XAA02248; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:47:05 GMT
Message-Id: <200808112347.XAA02248@sopwith.solgatos.com>
To: Sean Bruno <sbruno@miralink.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:12:28 PDT."
	<489DFA2C.4080407@miralink.com> 
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:47:05 +0100
From: Dieter <freebsd@sopwith.solgatos.com>
Cc: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>, freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: This is where I'm going with fwcontrol 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Firewire support in FreeBSD <freebsd-firewire.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-firewire>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-firewire-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-firewire>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-firewire-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-firewire>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-firewire-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:52:08 -0000

[ I suggested changing priority_budget from int to long, but
then realized that this only fixes it on LP64, not on ILP32. ]

>> I suspect that gcc will still complain on ILP32 machines.

> I implemented your fix for priority_budget, i.e. I should have been 
> paying attention to the conditional test and the assignment from strtol()!

What arch are you compiling this on?  Does gcc not complain on
a ILP32 machine?  If the intended legal range is 0-4294967295,
a 32 bit signed integer isn't going to work.  On ILP32, (long)0xffffffff
has a value of -1, assuming 2's complement.

Actually, strtol returns long, so the largest positive number it
can return is 0x7fffffff = 2147483647.  If we need 0-4294967295
perhaps use strtoll() which returns long long.

-------------

On the fwcontrol man page, should

     -i pri_req
             Set the PRIORITY_BUDGET register on all supported nodes.

be

     -b pri_req
             Set the PRIORITY_BUDGET register on all supported nodes.

?

For the benefit of end users who are not firewire wizards, it would
be nice for the man page to include the range of legal values and
what they mean.