Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 20:38:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More mbuf INVARIANTS code, comments needed Message-ID: <20030502203036.M4749@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200305020946.20514.vjardin@wanadoo.fr> References: <20030502010545.U610@odysseus.silby.com> <200305020946.20514.vjardin@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Vincent Jardin wrote: > It is a good idea. I do not see any problems with your patch. > > An esthetic comment: > I would prefer to see other trivial hexadecimal values like: > - 0xd0 (as in "Duh", used by stdlib/malloc()) > - or 0xdeadc0de (used by kern_malloc.c:#define WEIRD_ADDR 0xdeadc0de) > - or 0xdead0137, 0xdead0138, 0xdead0139, ... > > According to me, these values are easier to analyse when you get a panic or > when you dump the memory. > > Regards, > Vincent FWIW, I picked 0x137 through 0x139 because they all land within the first page of memory, which should be guaranteed to fault. I believe that 0xdeadbeef might be a valid address on large memory systems, thereby not causing the immediate failure I wanted. If anyone can think of symbolic values < 4096, I'm open to using them. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030502203036.M4749>