Re: Is it legal for a driver to use current_proc() in tiger?
Re: Is it legal for a driver to use current_proc() in tiger?
- Subject: Re: Is it legal for a driver to use current_proc() in tiger?
- From: Andrew Gallatin <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mike Smith writes:
>
> On Jun 29, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> > But I don't want a referenced handle. I promise to always use it in
> > that process context and not cache it anyplace. Since I'm using it in
> > my ioctl routine, the process is not going to disappear. Is it legal
> > to just continue to use current_proc()?
>
> I can't see any reason why not. It continues to be inexplicably
> prototyped in
> <vm.h>, but it looks like it's still kosher from here.
Thanks. The vm.h prototype is exactly what made me nervous. I've
gotten burned so many times in the past by using "internal" things
that I thought I should check.
Thanks again,
Drew
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden