Instead, we can make it part of the type and make named variables for
them, so they only require one definition (and if they ever change for
whatever reason, they only need to be changed in one spot).
Given the VirtualFile instance isn't stored into the class as a data
member, or written to, this can just be turned into a const reference,
as the constructor doesn't need to make a copy of it.
If the data is unconditionally being appended to the back of a
std::vector, we can just directly insert it there without the need to
insert all of the elements one-by-one with a std::back_inserter.
Given the filesystem should always be assumed to be volatile, we should
check and bail out if a seek operation isn't successful. This'll prevent
potentially writing/returning garbage data from the function in rare
cases.
This also allows removing a check to see if an offset is within the
bounds of a file before perfoming a seek operation. If a seek is
attempted beyond the end of a file, it will fail, so this essentially
combines two checks into one in one place.
Given the file is opened a few lines above and no operations are done,
other than check if the file is in a valid state, the read/write pointer
will always be at the beginning of the file.
These only exist to ferry data into a Process instance and end up going
out of scope quite early. Because of this, we can just make it a plain
struct for holding things and just std::move it into the relevant
function. There's no need to make this inherit from the kernel's Object
type.
Regular value initialization is adequate here for zeroing out data. It
also has the benefit of not invoking undefined behavior if a non-trivial
type is ever added to the struct for whatever reason.
This adds the missing address range checking that the service functions
do before attempting to map or unmap memory. Given that both service
functions perform the same set of checks in the same order, we can wrap
these into a function and just call it from both functions, which
deduplicates a little bit of code.
There's no real need to use a shared pointer in these cases, and only
makes object management more fragile in terms of how easy it would be to
introduce cycles. Instead, just do the simple thing of using a regular
pointer. Much of this is just a hold-over from citra anyways.
It also doesn't make sense from a behavioral point of view for a
process' thread to prolong the lifetime of the process itself (the
process is supposed to own the thread, not the other way around).
Lioncash
bunnei
FernandoS27
David Marcec
ReinUsesLisp