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>