Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 03:06:59 -0500 From: Hiten Pandya <hiten@unixdaemons.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: Hiten Pandya <hiten@unixdaemons.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using m_getcl() in network and nfs code paths Message-ID: <20030307080659.GA60937@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <20030306212638.A32850@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20030307004958.GA98917@unixdaemons.com> <20030306212638.A32850@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo (Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:26:38PM -0800) wrote: > the number of places where the code does > > m = (want > X) ? m_getcl(...) : m_get(...) > > makes me wonder if we shouldn't perhaps add a 'desired_size' > parameter to m_getcl() so we can have the test made in one > place and in a consistent way (i..e always use the same > threshold X instead of MLEN/MINCLSIZE/MHLEN > which i suspect is incorrect somewhere. Can you provide some examples for this? I do no exactly follow. The size checking is always changing. I have similar changes to the dev/ and pci/ and netgraph/ tree, and I noticed that it gets checked against MLEN/MCLBYTES/MHLEN and whatnot... but I do not think that is a bug, because surely they all represent different quantities? > Also it makes no sense to print a msg on failure -- the allocator > already does that. And even less to panic (as in the netatm > case). Right. I avoided this in the first place, because some did complain that extra verbosity was needed, but now that you have made the case crystal clear, I will remove them. As for the panic, well, if you noticed, error checking after mbuf + cluster allocation was screwed from the start in the NFS code (the client code is sort of better in this than the server code). So I was left with no choice but to panic, because there was no way I could return errors in a void function without considerable changes to the surrounding code and files as well. > All of the above are bugs in the original code but given that > you are going through it it would make sense to fix them once > for all. Yes. I will go ahead and fix the printf stuff, but I guess I can't look at the nfs error checking problems right now. I will put an XXX comment saying 'better error checking', and then I will get to it some other fine day. :-) Thanks for your comments Luigi, very much appreciated. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030307080659.GA60937>