[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH,HURD][RFC] hurdselect: Step7x, almost complete rewrite finish

From: Svante Signell
Subject: Re: [PATCH,HURD][RFC] hurdselect: Step7x, almost complete rewrite finished
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:25:59 +0100

On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:37:39 +0100, a écrit :
> > > No, it doesn't. There are quite a few ways in which it will break.
> > 
> > Well (as you say) I'm a newbie C programmer, tell me where the bugs
> > are ;-)
> As I already said, there are too many than I want to even spend time
> describing any.
> Be it just
>                  if (ispoll)
>                    {
>                    case EPIPE:

Yes, that was a mistake, it should be the other way around.

> which is obviously bogus without looking at the context. It's sad that
> the C compiler can't tell you it does not make sense (I see what sense
> you tried to tell the compiler, but sorry that can't work that way).
>                if (d[i].io_port == MACH_PORT_NULL)
>                  {
>                    _hurd_port_free (&d[i].cell->port,
> Doesn't make sense either. You haven't understood what the original code
> was doing (cleaning the previously allocated ports, not this newly one).

I think I did understand what the original code did, but this seemed to
be wrongly implemented. Something you could have told me if you had
taken the time to do a review.

> There are other such kind of issues I don't even want to take time to
> look out again.

I'll find them myself then. In order learn to write "correct" code.
Factorised, hierarchical or something else. The mail has an RFC in the
title. I did not claim that the rewrite was completed, did I?

reply via email to

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