bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Confusing definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port()


From: Diego Nieto Cid
Subject: Re: Confusing definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port()
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:34:24 -0300


2015-11-04 16:03 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > >   assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > >
> > > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port' and
> > > 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are meant to be paired.
> >
> > That's probably a good thing to do, yes.
>
> What's wrong with?
> mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
> assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
>

That's ok. I just rewrote it to make clear what the accepted values were. Because the second patch incorporated an if statement that converted the suggested condition in a tautology.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]