From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 13 08:10:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3250D106564A for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199AF8FC16 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBD8AATW030345 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pBD8AAoK030344; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:10 GMT Message-Id: <201112130810.pBD8AAoK030344@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Petr Salinger Cc: Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Petr Salinger List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163076; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Petr Salinger To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Jaakko Heinonen , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, mdf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/163076: It is not possible to read in chunks from linprocfs and procfs. Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:13:17 +0100 (CET) >>> One problem is the different malloc() semantics. The kernel version uses >>> M_WAITOK allocations while user space malloc(3) can fail. >> Yes, that's Dag-Erlings and my point: The semantics are too different. > > There is another, more important issue. And yet another point of view. Will be this regression corrected for 9.0 release ? Previously (in stable-8), the sbuf_finish() cleared the overflow error. It used to return void, and as noted previously, only 21 of 133 calls check return value of sbuf_finish(), i.e. only 1/6 have been migrated to new API semantics. What about restore clearing of error during sbuf_finish() for stable-9 and do the right thing in HEAD ? Petr