Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 19:40:41 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen sysconf.c Message-ID: <20021117034041.GC6882@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200211170333.gAH3XG7o099552@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <200211160635.gAG6ZKUX094649@repoman.freebsd.org> <200211160706.gAG76Z4S089556@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20021116095822.GT50692@elvis.mu.org> <200211170202.gAH22oLd099179@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20021117030805.GA6882@elvis.mu.org> <200211170333.gAH3XG7o099552@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> [021116 19:33] wrote: > <<On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 19:08:05 -0800, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> said: > > > In re 1.18, the problem is that the code changes a 0 return to -1, > > at least for _SC_AIO_PRIO_DELTA_MAX, so that portion of the revision > > should stay right? (since 0 is a valid response from the kernel) > > The bug here is that these cases are going through the `yesno' logic > but are not booleans. Replace the `goto yesno' with `break' and the > Right Thing should happen (i.e., the value from the kernel will be > returned). > > -GAWollman But don't we want -1 for _SC_AIO_LISTIO_MAX and _SC_AIO_MAX when it's not loaded? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021117034041.GC6882>