Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As the whole point of _diskfs_ncontrol_ports is debugging and
> _diskfs_ncontrol_ports is not surrounded by #ifdef DEBUG or something
> similar, I would like to see this added.
You're incorrect. The whole point of _diskfs_ncontrol_ports is to
facili
> This is not true for the root filesystem.
>
> Such things should be debugging features, I think, and not the normal
> case.
As the whole point of _diskfs_ncontrol_ports is debugging and
_diskfs_ncontrol_ports is not surrounded by #ifdef DEBUG or something
similar, I would like to see this adde
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although I agree that there is nothing wrong inherently with the number
> of outstanding send rights to a control port going to zero, I would
> claim that, in the general case, something went wrong. For instance, if
> there are no outstanding send ri
> This is not appropriate. There is nothing wrong with the number of live
> control ports going to zero.
Although I agree that there is nothing wrong inherently with the number
of outstanding send rights to a control port going to zero, I would
claim that, in the general case, something went w
> * dir-chg.c (disk_S_dir_notice_changes): Check the return of malloc.
Your actual patch removes the check that was already there.
> * file-set-trans.c (diskfs_S_file_set_translator): Be
> consistent, use err not error.
Please do not make this sort of gratuitous change. There
2001-04-14 Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* node-create.c (diskfs_create_node): If we fail, set *NEWNODE
to NULL; at least diskfs_S_dir_lookup depends on this behavior.
* dir-chg.c (disk_S_dir_notice_changes): Check the return of
malloc.
* file-set
