On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:01:33AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:11:26AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> > >>Me, too. But I'd rather that we had the equivalent ISCLR() macro, too,
> > >>to remove another negation/complement.
> > >
> > >So is ISCLR when passed two bits tr
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:11:26AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> >>Me, too. But I'd rather that we had the equivalent ISCLR() macro, too,
> >>to remove another negation/complement.
> >
> >So is ISCLR when passed two bits true if both are clear, or if it's just
> >not the case that both are set?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:32:38AM +0900, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
> >From: Jukka Ruohonen
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> >> Restructure layer_lock() to alw
Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
>From: Jukka Ruohonen
>
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testing for dead node.
>> Use ISSET() to test flags, add assertio
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Greg Troxel wrote:
Paul Goyette writes:
Me, too. But I'd rather that we had the equivalent ISCLR() macro, too,
to remove another negation/complement.
So is ISCLR when passed two bits true if both are clear, or if it's just
not the case that both are set?
Arguably this
Paul Goyette writes:
> Me, too. But I'd rather that we had the equivalent ISCLR() macro, too,
> to remove another negation/complement.
So is ISCLR when passed two bits true if both are clear, or if it's just
not the case that both are set?
Arguably this points out that the ISSET docs should ex
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Greg Troxel wrote:
Taylor R Campbell writes:
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
From: Jukka Ruohonen
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testing for dead node.
> Use IS
Taylor R Campbell writes:
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
>From: Jukka Ruohonen
>
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testing for dead node.
>> Use ISSET() to test flags, add assert
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:16:32 +0200
From: Jukka Ruohonen
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testing for dead node.
> Use ISSET() to test flags, add assertions.
As I wrote in the manual page,
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:39:23AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: hannken
> Date: Wed Mar 12 09:39:23 UTC 2014
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/miscfs/genfs: layer_vnops.c
>
> Log Message:
> Restructure layer_lock() to always lock before testin
> Log Message:
> Revert part which variable initializations within interleaved gotos.
>
> again:
> if (...) goto err;
> void *ptr = alloc();
> if (...) goto again;
> if (...) goto err1;
> ...
> err1: if (ptr) free(ptr);
> err:
> return;
>
> This leaks memory if
Roy Marples wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: roy
> Date: Fri Nov 20 13:42:43 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/miscfs/genfs: genfs_vnops.c
>
> Log Message:
> Allow chown if caller is in the new group.
Is it possible now to do something like
chown me:users /etc/passw
12 matches
Mail list logo
