Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:52:15 +0900 From: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Subject: Re: i386/14946: rmt - remote magtape protocol Message-ID: <14497.3743.504303.68187Y@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:43:56 -0800 (PST)" <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002071138340.79272-100000@semuta.feral.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002071033370.79272-100000@semuta.feral.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002071138340.79272-100000@semuta.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> said: Matthew> There is no need to change dump or restore because they don't use rmtstatus at Matthew> all right now. The reason why the above is fine is that for version 0 RMT Matthew> protocol, the actual contents of the status structure must be undefined Matthew> (they're binary, after all), so as long as the size is acceptable, it must in Matthew> fact be 'good' status. For the sake of sanity, would it still not be good to respect the size of bytes returned in response to an S command in rmtstatus()? -- Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <tanimura@FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14497.3743.504303.68187Y>