[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: RE24 testing (pre-testing on 2.4.27)

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Howard Chu wrote:

msync is not applicable here. It's only relevant if changes are made using the mmap'd region, and we don't.

Right, good point. A few one-liners that aren't really worth an ITS (yet?):


In libraries/libmdb/mdb.c, the compiler is warning about:

   5920         rc = mdb_drop0(mc, mc->mc_db->md_flags & MDB_DUPSORT);
   5921         if (rc)
   5922                 mdb_cursor_close(mc);
   5923                 return rc;
   5925         /* Can't delete the main DB */
   5926         if (del && dbi > MAIN_DBI) {

5926 being unreached (because of 5923). Braces on 5921?


#undef DEBUG, and "#define DKEY(x)"

preprocesses to:

                         ( void ) ( "found leaf index %u [%s], rc = %i" ,
                                    i, , rc);

so IMO:

#define DKEY(x) ""

or any other blank-ish concept...


On Solaris 9, stdint.h doesn't exist. inttypes.h does, and should (in theory) be a drop-in replacement. Or, we can try for C90-compliance (by using neither), or.......?


if it's C99-style types, servers/slapd/back-mdb uses u_int32_t which should probably be uint32_t. (Berkeley DB gets around this with some definitions in db.h, but I see no reason for mdb to have those hacks...)


Solaris 9 defines BYTE_ORDER via <resolv.h>, I don't see any danger in just #include'ing that on all platforms? (Apparently future standards might include an endian.h for this...there's no standard like no standard...)


PAGESIZE is part of SUSv2 <limits.h>; would you be open to a patch to change that to MDB_PAGESIZE?