Add shmatt_t.
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by ed on May 31 2016, 7:05 AM.

Details

Reviewers

Commits

Summary

It looks like our "struct shmid_ds::shm_nattch" deviates from the
standard in the sense that it is a signed integer, whereas POSIX
requires that it is unsigned, having a special type shmatt_t.

Patch up our native and 32-bit copies to use a new shmatt_t that is an
unsigned integer. As it's unsigned, we can relax the comparisons that
are performed on it. Leave the Linux, iBCS2, etc. copies of the
structure alone.

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

ed updated this revision to Diff 17138.May 31 2016, 7:05 AM

ed retitled this revision from to Add shmatt_t..

ed updated this object.

ed edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

ed added a reviewer: ngie.

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptMay 31 2016, 7:05 AM

Looks good to me, but have you sent this through a ports -exp run yet?

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 31 2016, 7:56 PM

In D6655#140643, @ngie wrote:

Looks good to me, but have you sent this through a ports -exp run yet?

Thanks for the review!

I haven't requested an exp-run for this specific change, as unlike some of the other changes I'm proposing, this concerns a part of the API that I argue is very rarely used. Given that most other operating systems already support this datatype, my guess is that it's very unlikely that things break because of this.

In D6655#140647, @ed wrote:

In D6655#140643, @ngie wrote:

Looks good to me, but have you sent this through a ports -exp run yet?

Thanks for the review!

I haven't requested an exp-run for this specific change, as unlike some of the other changes I'm proposing, this concerns a part of the API that I argue is very rarely used. Given that most other operating systems already support this datatype, my guess is that it's very unlikely that things break because of this.

Given how close we are in the dev cycle for CURRENT, it would probably be a good idea to send this through an -exp run.. at the very least, I'm concerned about open-vm-tools-nox11 and net-snmp.

In D6655#140651, @ngie wrote:

Given how close we are in the dev cycle for CURRENT, it would probably be a good idea to send this through an -exp run.. at the very least, I'm concerned about open-vm-tools-nox11 and net-snmp.

Given how minor this change is, I decided not to do an exp-run, but simply wait until after branching. I'll do some final testing and push this change in. Thanks for the review!

Closed by commit rS303340: Add shmatt_t. (authored by ed). · Explain WhyJul 26 2016, 5:24 PM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.