On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:58:02PM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:04:14AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > The process should be stopped by the time we dump a core, so running it
> > multiple times should be ok in that the sizes should not change. I would
> > say that yo
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:16:05PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> IMO sbuf_pad() should be moved to subr_sbuf.c. I find the KPI of
> the sbuf_pad() wrong. You have two separate number, the amount to
> pad to, and the current amount. Natural interface would take the
> two numbers separate inst
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:35:20AM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> Ah, this is a thing I wanted to discuss but forgot! As I understand
> the idea of the 'ABI hack' is: if the output buffer is less than the
> size of data we have, truncate our data to the last successfully
> written kinfo_file struct
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:35:20AM +0200, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 09:16:05PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > IMO sbuf_pad() should be moved to subr_sbuf.c. I find the KPI of
> > the sbuf_pad() wrong. You have two separate number, the amount to
> > pad to, and the cur
4 matches
Mail list logo
