Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:10:12 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bitstring(9) in kernel. Message-ID: <xzp65d6f8ob.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040315150248.GL35475@elvis.mu.org> (Maxime Henrion's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:02:48 %2B0100") References: <20040315143123.GB8930@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <xzpish6f9hb.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040315150248.GL35475@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > Ok, bitstring(9) is broken for kernel use atm, because leak of calloc= () > > > function. What we should do about it? > > No, it isn't broken. You just have to use bitstr_size() to figure out > > how much space it needs and do the alloc yourself. > That is, reimplement bit_alloc(). This makes 0 sense, we should indeed > fix bit_alloc() as Pawel suggested. What doesn't make sense is to assume that there is no difference between the kernel and userland and that you can write code which will work in both. There are bugs in the kernel which I can't fix properly because Somebody[tm] decided they wanted to use sbufs in userland, and dumbed down the code so the changes I need to make are no longer possible. So we have to live with workarounds... That being said, I have no objection to Pawel's patch. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp65d6f8ob.fsf>