"Philippe Houdoin" <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, in these cases it doesn't matter much, but I think _howmany() > > would be better. > Will fix that soon, then. Just to note it, there is no official howmany() macro - it's a "feature" of the implementation, and since recent BSD style is to use the underscore as prefix, I think we should do that, too. > > If I implemented it correctly, it doesn't depend on FD_SIZE at all, > It's NOT implemented correctly (fd_set fields in a struct, no dynamic > sizing of the array). Do you mean the kernel version is not implemented correctly? If so what do I have to fix? > But, yeah, you right, it doesn't worth it to fix it. > Just need to remember this issue. > Let's add a docs/develop/net/release_notes.html soon ;-) Indeed, perhaps a few days before the first real R5 test release :-) > > modules, having to care for set_sem_owner(sem, B_SYSTEM_TEAM) would > That's pretty much all, in fact. And already taken care in old code. > #ifdef _KERNEL_MODE set_sem_owner() #endif is not that bad. > spawn_kernel_thread() is mapped to spawn_kernel() by net_server. > dprintf() to printf(), etc. Since I don't have a better idea on how to solve the set_sem_owner() issue, I think we should use the userland debug system the way you've created it. :-) > The final objective is to have a address space agnostic module code > as > much as possible, > so that the stack debug platform could be use to coding new module, > test them, fix them > before having to do it in KDL for the more serious bugs... That would be a very nice and unique feature of the OpenBeOS networking stack! Adios... Axel.