On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:44:02AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The presence of the device has already been tested before, so testing
> it again for individual fields is redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare
Reviewed-by: Jerry Hoemann
> ---
> If we really wanted to test individual fields,
Just made a call on my social network to get some help from BSD people.
Le lun. 16 juin 2025, 17:53, Jean Delvare a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently reworking the way dmidecode handles big-endian
> systems, and systems where unaligned memory access is prohibited. The
> new code is safer an
Hi all,
We are currently reworking the way dmidecode handles big-endian
systems, and systems where unaligned memory access is prohibited. The
new code is safer and more elegant, however it relies on functions and
macros which may or may not be available on all systems. And these are
defined in hea
Hi Fangrui,
One year and a half later, I'm looking into this again.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 23:23:52 -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:08 AM Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The warnings are indeed gone, and I think the code should work fine on
> > bigendian systems (unfortunately I can't
The presence of the device has already been tested before, so testing
it again for individual fields is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare
---
If we really wanted to test individual fields, then "Device Not
Present" wouldn't be the right thing to display anyway. If some of
the fields are set,
