From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Feb 9 1:14:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D911440C for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo [192.67.166.79]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06573; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:45:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:45:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Seigo Tanimura Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i386/14946: rmt - remote magtape protocol In-Reply-To: <14497.3743.504303.68187Y@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Seigo Tanimura wrote: > On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), > Matthew Jacob 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