r328027 kevans Jan. 15, 2018, 9:53 p.m.
r314467 introduced hw.usb.wsp.enable_single_tap_clicks to enable/disable
single-tap left click behavior. Update the man page to reflect the new
sysctl.

PR:		196624
MFC after:	3 days
X-MFC-With:	r314467
ViewVC
r328026 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:23 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328025 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:21 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328024 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:19 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328023 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:18 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328022 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:15 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328021 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:14 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328020 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:13 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328019 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:11 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328018 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:10 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328017 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:09 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328016 pfg Jan. 15, 2018, 9:08 p.m.
Focus on code where we are doing multiplications within malloc(9). None of
these ire likely to overflow, however the change is still useful as some
static checkers can benefit from the allocation attributes we use for
mallocarray.

This initial sweep only covers malloc(9) calls with M_NOWAIT. No good
reason but I started doing the changes before r327796 and at that time it
was convenient to make sure the sorrounding code could handle NULL values.

X-Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13837
ViewVC
r328015 tuexen Jan. 15, 2018, 8:39 p.m.
Sponsored by:		Netflix, Inc.
ViewVC
r328014 tuexen Jan. 15, 2018, 8:37 p.m.
SCTP level cmsgs.
ViewVC
r328013 dab Jan. 15, 2018, 7:25 p.m.
When the fsck_ffs program cannot fully repair a file system, it will
output the message PLEASE RERUN FSCK. However, it does not exit with a
non-zero status in this case (contradicting the man page claim that it
"exits with 0 on success, and >0 if an error occurs."  The fsck
rc-script (when running "fsck -y") tests the status from fsck (which
passes along the exit status from fsck_ffs) and issues a "stop_boot"
if the status fails. However, this is not effective since fsck_ffs can
return zero even on (some) errors. Effectively, it is left to a later
step in the boot process when the file systems are mounted to detect
the still-unclean file system and stop the boot.

This change modifies fsck_ffs so that when it cannot fully repair the
file system and issues the PLEASE RERUN FSCK message it also exits
with a non-zero status.

While here, the fsck_ffs man page has also been updated to document
the failing exit status codes used by fsck_ffs. Previously, only exit
status 7 was documented. Some of these exit statuses are tested for in
the fsck rc-script, so they are clearly depended upon and deserve
documentation.

Reviewed by:	mckusick, vangyzen, jilles (manpages)
MFC after:	1 week
Sponsored by:	Dell EMC
Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13862
ViewVC