Re: [patches 2/2] struct switchframe/pcb improvements

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:21:40PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <52F92D38.8070303%bbn.com@localhost>, Richard Hansen  
> <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I discovered a couple of issues in one of the patches I sent.  I've
> >attached a new version of the patch, and commented on the issues below:
> 
> You really cannot (or should not) dereference kernel/user addresses
> (even when it happens to work), and use the db_read_foo() and
> pointer + offsetof() style so that things always work. If it is not
> possible to avoid the ifdef for the base pointer (perhaps doing the
> same thing we did for i386 to amd64), then it is best if the ifdef
> is centralized in one place and hidden behind a macro. But dsl@ should
> really take a look at all of this.

True, and I've not looked at ddb ever either!

You might want to add some comments about what the code is doing.
That makes it much easier to review, and much easier to look at later on.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost