| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All its callers got reviewed and converted to
use uiomove() properly.
ok deraadt@
|
|
|
|
| |
feedback/ok schwarze
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- rename uiomove() to uiomovei() and update all its users.
- introduce uiomove(), which is similar to uiomovei() but with a size_t.
- rewrite uiomovei() as an uiomove() wrapper.
ok kettenis@
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Diff from Jan Klemkow <j dot klemkow at wemelug dot de> on tech@.
No objection from jmc@ against this type of change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not sure what's more surprising: how long it took for NetBSD to
catch up to the rest of the BSDs (including UCB), or the amount of
code that NetBSD has claimed for itself without attributing to the
actual authors.
OK deraadt@
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
the structure is passed to functions other than uiomove();
discussed with pedro@
|
|
|
|
|
| |
from kirihara masaharu (netbsd pr #29355);
ok miod@ millert@
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- macro fixes
- kill whitespace at EOL
- use .Ox for OpenBSD, .Fx for FreeBSD
|
|
|
|
| |
ok henning@
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
consider changing the size parameter to uiomove() from int to size_t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If those pages are different from the NetBSD version, maybe there's a
reason ?
Like, possibly, I just read our source code, which just happens to do
things in DIFFERENT ways than NetBSD does ?
As far as the added pages go, they obviously haven't been checked against
actual code as well, hence they're worse than useless, since a large part
of the information is definitely misleading.
|
|
|