Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:36:40 +0200 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r184558 - head/sys/dev/acpica/Osd Message-ID: <490F36A8.70601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200811031226.46956.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200811021250.mA2CoGs1038957@svn.freebsd.org> <200811031050.48765.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <490F21FC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> <200811031226.46956.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> I'm also sorry, but that is what I see: >> typedef __int32_t __lwpid_t; /* Thread ID (a.k.a. LWP) >> */ ... >> td->td_tid = alloc_unr(tid_unrhdr); >> ... >> tid_unrhdr = new_unrhdr(PID_MAX + 2, INT_MAX, &tid_lock); >> >> So what have I missed, where is the problem? Why td_tid is not >> unique and where is the size problem? > > On top of that: > > /* Returning 0 is not allowed. */ > return (curthread->td_tid + 1); > > may actually return 0 because it can be INT_MAX. :-) No, maximum is positive overflow. :) Actually "+ 1" is probably not needed here as system assigns thread IDs are above process IDs and ID 0 is already busy. :) PS: More arguments sent privately. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?490F36A8.70601>