Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Code gates

2006-03-08 Thread Danek Duvall
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:21:35AM -0800, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > One hopes that his actions are logical, but they're not all programmatic. Many are, though. At present, since we're teamware based, the following happens: - gateling does a putback - putback sends a message to a handful

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Code gates

2006-03-07 Thread lianep
Keith M Wesolowski writes: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:13:01AM -0800, UNIX admin wrote: > > > The reason I took up interest in the code gates is that some of the > > kernel engineering folks' posts seem to imply there's 'gatekeeper' > > logic of some sort sitting on a code gate, doing basic sani

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Code gates

2006-03-07 Thread Keith M Wesolowski
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:13:01AM -0800, UNIX admin wrote: > The reason I took up interest in the code gates is that some of the > kernel engineering folks' posts seem to imply there's 'gatekeeper' > logic of some sort sitting on a code gate, doing basic sanity checks > on the putback source code

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Code gates

2006-03-06 Thread James C. McPherson
Coy Hile wrote: Speaking from experience, there James? :) Shush, you! I'm sure Mike Sullivan remembers :| *cough* freeing a kernel buffer with the wrong size isn't a good thing to do. cheers, James C. McPherson -- Solaris Datapath Engineering Data Management Group Sun Microsystems __