> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 14:00, Thomas 'Dent' Mirlacher wrote:
> > and the checks in various places are really strange. - well some
> > places check for:
> > o != NULL
> > o > -1024UL
>
> "Not an error". Its relying as some other bits of code do actually that
> the top mappable user address is never in the top 1K of the address
> space
ok, that explain the -1024UL
> > is it possible to have 0 as a valid address? - if not, this should
> > be the return on errors.
>
> SuS explicitly says that 0 is not a valid mmap return address.
ok.
so it seems the code itself is correct. it's just a little bit odd
to read over the code, returning an unsigned int, and then find
no comments on this "not so common usage" ;)
nevertheless, functions which just check for != NULL for the return
type needs fixing. - plus s hort comment containing your explaination
above could help other people ...
tm
-- in some way i do, and in some way i don't.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/