Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:33:08 +0100 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 112535 for review Message-ID: <20070109203308.GA32081@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <200701091317.06685.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200701050802.l0582Gnq067583@repoman.freebsd.org> <200701051232.28019.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070106144030.GB1353@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <200701091317.06685.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:17:06PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > @@ -237,12 +237,10 @@
> > > >
> > > > pr = td->td_ucred->cr_prison;
> > > > if (pr != NULL) {
> > > > - mtx_lock(&pr->pr_mtx);
> > > > if (pr->pr_linux != NULL) {
> > > > lpr = (struct linux_prison *)pr->pr_linux;
> > > > use26 = lpr->pr_use_linux26;
> > > > }
> > > > - mtx_unlock(&pr->pr_mtx);
> > > > } else
> > > > use26 = linux_use_linux26;
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, what is use26 set to if pr != NULL but pr->pr_linux == NULL?
> >
> > to the default value of 0
>
> Shouldn't it be set to linux_use_26 in that case?
as I understand the code such condition should not happen under
normal condition and is a sign of something bad's going on.
so its better to be safe and not enable the "higher" emulation.
the point is - a defined value is returned and it even happens
to be the same value (0) as the linux_use_26.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070109203308.GA32081>