Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:27:20 +0100 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: anyone believe this KASSERT? Message-ID: <200310240127.aa46705@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:41:36 PDT." <200310231441.36966.sam@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200310231441.36966.sam@errno.com>, Sam Leffler writes:
>uipc_socket.c has a KASSERT in soreceive that I think is wrong. It dates from
>
>a long time ago but I can't tell exactly who created it since some
>intermediate munging buggered the CVS logs.
It was there in revision 1.1 as:
m = so->so_rcv.sb_mb;
...
if (m == 0 || (...) &&
m->m_nextpkt == 0 && (pr->pr_flags & PR_ATOMIC) == 0) {
#ifdef DIAGNOSTIC
if (m == 0 && so->so_rcv.sb_cc)
panic("receive 1");
#endif
Seems to be clearer there except for the lack of brackets around
the (a && b && c) - it's just saying that if sb_mb is NULL then
sb_cc should be zero. The current code appears to do the same thing,
so looks reasonable unless I'm missing something (sb_mb should be
NULL when there is no data queued shouldn't it?).
Digging back even further:
REV:7.13 uipc_socket.c 1989/04/22 12:26:53 sklower
checkpoint for version to be handed to NIST, simple tp4 connection
...
- if (so->so_rcv.sb_cc == 0) {
+ m = so->so_rcv.sb_mb;
+ if (m == 0) {
+ if (so->so_rcv.sb_cc)
+ panic("receive 1");
Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310240127.aa46705>