, Steve Woodford <scw@netbsd.org>
From: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/20/2000 13:53:56
> > Are there any objections to changing struct emul's e_name field from
> >
> > char e_name[8];
> > to
> > const char *e_name;
> >
> > Cheers, Steve
>
>Doing that would cause you to have to do two kvm reads (one to get emul,
>one to get emul->e_name), but even so, I think it's the right thing to do.
wouldn't it simply be more correct to print only up to 8 bytes if
that's how long the field is?
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."