From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May  2 18:38:38 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4131637B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri,  2 May 2003 18:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68F9E43FA3
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri,  2 May 2003 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 31361 invoked from network); 3 May 2003 01:38:36 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 3 May 2003 01:38:36 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 20:38:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200305020946.20514.vjardin@wanadoo.fr>
Message-ID: <20030502203036.M4749@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <20030502010545.U610@odysseus.silby.com>
	<200305020946.20514.vjardin@wanadoo.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More mbuf INVARIANTS code, comments needed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 01:38:38 -0000


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