On Feb 10,  8:13pm, jmmv84@gmail.com ("Julio M. Merino Vidal") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/wscons

| On Friday 10 February 2006 19:31, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > On Feb 10,  6:41pm, jmmv84@gmail.com ("Julio M. Merino Vidal") wrote:
| > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/wscons
| >
| > | On Friday 10 February 2006 18:33, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > | > Module Name:	src
| > | > Committed By:	christos
| > | > Date:		Fri Feb 10 17:33:02 UTC 2006
| > | >
| > | > Modified Files:
| > | > 	src/sys/dev/wscons: wsmouse.c
| > | >
| > | > Log Message:
| > | > PR/32794: Paul Shupak: Panic in wsmouse code.
| > | > Checking the number of events after you've trashed the stack is not
| > | > very useful. Instead, break out of the loop if we ran out, printing a
| > | > message.
| > |
| > | Maybe there should be assertions just before each attempt to modify
| > | events[nevents] to ensure that nevents is low enough.
| >
| > I think it is fine for the non-loop cases (because it is obvious that
| > they fit).
| >
| > | But... given the way the events vector is sized (to which you added a
| > | comment), in which situation can it overflow?
| >
| > Well, we'll find out soon enough I guess. The logic is complicated with
| > the repeat button mix.
| 
| But it doesn't add more events to the vector.  It only sets up a callout
| which acts independently of the input function.  Note that the first
| event is sent from within this function, so everything is the same as
| was before (modulo the assertion).

But it changes the state of many variables so it is difficult to debug.

christos