From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 24 21:37:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA13642 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA13637 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16721; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707250439.VAA16721@implode.root.com> To: itojun@itojun.org cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: odd xxget() in some network drivers In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:30:53 +0900." <18562.869805053@itojun.csl.sony.co.jp> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:39:05 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> The new logic in that PR is: >> ! if (MHLEN < len) { >> The only problem with the above is that the first if () expression is wrong. >>The test should be if (len > MHLEN). Not only is this correct for style, but >>it is logically different: MHLEN < len will allocate an mbuf cluster when >>len == MHLEN, and this is not desired. > > ???? I did not write MHLEN <= len. Why len>MHLEN and MHLEN should result in different situation? Sorry, brain fart. You're correct...there's a reason why we write it the other way: so people like me don't get confused. :-) >> I would prefer that you had your proposed changes reviewed first. > > I prefer that too, however only very few people seems to check > problem reports in a regular basis... I do need to wait almost > forever. In this case it's better to contact the author of the driver(s) directly. Non-bug reports are easily ignored otherwise. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project