[openbeosnetteam] Re: One small step for net team, but... but one small step forward?

  • From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:52:54 +0100 CET

"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.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. openbeosnetteam
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2002