On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:48:08PM +0300, Ognyan Kulev wrote: > > I don't know how this library is used so it is possible that a part of > its interfaces demand that ports are already removed by > `packet_read_ports'. But why then `pq_dequeue' calls > `packet_dealloc_ports'? So i think the correct is to set num_ports to zero.
Yes. S_socket_recv in pflocal does read the ports via pipe_recv, but it uses them in the return message with MACH_MSG_TYPE_MAKE_SEND, so new send rights are created. The existing reference is not consumed, so deallocating them in pq_dequeue is the right thing to do. > There are many places where `bcopy' is used instead of `memcpy'. As said before, we clean them up as we go. Feel free to GC those whenever you work on some code (but it's not important to send a patch just for that). > The second question is about using mmap/munmap instead of > vm_allocate/vm_deallocate. In pq.[ch] they are mixed, there is no > consistency. What is the reason to prefer `mmap' to `vm_allocate'? Is > there a policy about that? Also as said before, we use munmap consistently when possible, to become less dependent on Mach. I am not sure how to test this code. You need to send port rights over sockets, so for example a program exercising file descriptor passing would use this code. Also, the lack of initialization of buf_start and buf_end should show up whenever packets are reused, but I am not sure when this happens (IOW: why didn't we see a problem here earlier). I think that initialization of num_ports and buf_start/buf_end can be better done outside the if/else branches, as it is the same for both. But that isd only a small clean up. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
