[illumos-Developer] webrev for 1108

[Richard Elling]

LGTM, but...

On Jun 12, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Dan Kruchinin wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> wrote:
>> I would expect the XXX comments regarding EBUSY to be resolved in one
>> direction or another (either set the error, or remove the comment,
>> whichever is correct).
> 
> I'm not sure that an answer on the question what error code should be
> set if endpoint is closing can be found fast.
> There definitely must be the code reporting an error, but we need to
> choose the error code STREAMS familiar with. (i.e. it should
> know how to deal with it).
> 
> Probably it's better to remove the comment and open new issue
> describing the problem in both ser
> functions after the code is committed.

I'm ok with a TODO comment. However the proposed comment does not give
much information to make a later decision. I'd much rather see information on why
the issue is not resolved at this time and where other parts might be impacted.
I do not think that referring to another bugid is sufficient, as Oracle has demonstrated
that bugids are not necessarily part of permanent project memory. Or, to put it another 
way, don't make me search for the conflict to discover an possible answer.
 -- richard


> By the way, we discussed this code with Dan McDonald in IRC,
> he suggested to add comment only to the new code. Is it ok?
> 
>> 
>> -- Rich
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> W.B.R.
> Dan Kruchinin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer