Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:26:30 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 dump_machdep.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212161621470.11938-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200212170009.gBH09TFn082087@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Hmm. Wouldn't this be easier if the test were done after > calculating dumplo? e.g. > > :> dumplo = di->mediaoffset + di->mediasize - Maxmem * (off_t)PAGE_SIZE; > :> dumplo -= sizeof kdh * 2; > no because then you'd have to check fopr dumplo being -ve and I'm of the opinion that blocknumbers should always be unsigned (*) so if this were ever "corrected" to be unsigned, you'd have to check for an overflow which is difficult. (*) there are many bugs showing up at the moment as disks start to get NBLK > 2^31 blocks on them that wouldn't happen if they were unsigned.. I have 3 such devices each with >1TB. If you want to see things explode, just try run sysinstall on them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0212161621470.11938-100000>