[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       hurd-bug
Subject:    Re: Confusing definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port()
From:       Svante Signell <svante.signell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-11-04 19:03:02
Message-ID: 1446663782.31749.76.camel () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> >   assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > 
> > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port' and
> > 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are meant to be paired.
> 
> That's probably a good thing to do, yes.

What's wrong with?
mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)

Additionally, any strong reason to not change mig??



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]