Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:01:13 +0100 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> To: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> Cc: Morten Rodal <morten@rodal.no>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch for the nVidia driver and -CURRENT Message-ID: <20030226110113.GE18565@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20030226001542.A42311@locore.ca> References: <20030225182809.GA18565@elvis.mu.org> <20030225214529.GA19651@slurp.rodal.no> <20030225214916.GC18565@elvis.mu.org> <20030226001542.A42311@locore.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jake Burkholder wrote:
> Apparently, On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:49:16PM +0100,
> Maxime Henrion said words to the effect of;
>
> > Morten Rodal wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 07:28:09PM +0100, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > > [snip a lot of the patch]
> > > > @@ -1431,7 +1442,8 @@
> > > > SLIST_FOREACH(at, &sc->alloc_list, list) {
> > > > if (offset >= at->address &&
> > > > offset < at->address + at->size)
> > > > - return atop(vtophys(offset));
> > > > + *paddr = vtophys(offset);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > return -1;
> > >
> > > Should the function return 0 even if the if (offset..) fails? I have
> > > no clue about the nvidia kernel driver (or kernel stuff at all) but it
> > > seems to me that the only way the function can return -1 is if the
> > > list is empty.
> >
> > And this is consistant with what the code was doing before. This change
> > is not a functional change, it's just a necessary update due to API
> > changes.
>
> I think he's referring to missing braces around the if which was changed
> from 1 statement to 2.
Damnit. I've updated the patch at :
http://mu.org/~mux/patches/nvidia.patch
I've also added the removal of the #error in this patch, since people
have been asking me about it.
Cheers,
Maxime
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030226110113.GE18565>