From owner-cvs-sys Sun Mar 8 10:46:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from daemon@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24213 for cvs-sys-outgoing; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:46:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-sys) Received: from pluto.plutotech.com (mail.plutotech.com [206.168.67.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24170; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:46:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gibbs@plutotech.com) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by pluto.plutotech.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA19687; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 11:45:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199803081845.LAA19687@pluto.plutotech.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 To: "John S. Dyson" cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, gibbs@plutotech.com, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/specfs spec_vnops.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 08 Mar 1998 13:37:49 EST." <199803081837.NAA00266@dyson.iquest.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 11:42:39 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> >What is b_resid initialized to? CAM only touches b_resid when an error >> >occurs or there is a residual, so I'm hoping it's initialized to 0. >> >I think that other portions of the tree also expect it to be zero. >> >> It is initialized to 0. This is bogus since it is already initialized to >> 0 (in initpbuf()). It might be useful to initialize it to a bad value to >> punish portions of the tree expect it to be zero. It used to be abused >> as the cylinder number for disksort(), so old code won't expect it to be >> initialized. >> >We don't need to punish right now. Let's just try to stabilize, and where >we have weaknesses, let's put appropriate diagnostics in the code. So do you both believe that we should be setting b_resid always? I have no problem with this, it would simply be nice to have the semantics of the field clarified. All current upper level code seems to initialize it to zero... -- Justin