Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:45:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i386/14946: rmt - remote magtape protocol Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10002082342490.84595-100000@beppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <14497.3743.504303.68187Y@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Seigo Tanimura wrote: > 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()? Yes, but because nobody ever calls this routine, a better approach would be to comment it out until it's used. -matt 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.10002082342490.84595-100000>