On 10/24/2024 03:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
Other setsockopt() in the tests where we use unsigned long are
SO_VM_SOCKETS_* but they are expected to be unsigned, so we should be
fine.
It's actually not "signed vs unsigned", but a "size + endianess" problem.
Also, looking at SO_VM_SOCKETS_* c
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 10:00:47AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
On 10/24/2024 03:43, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
Other setsockopt() in the tests where we use unsigned long are
SO_VM_SOCKETS_* but they are expected to be unsigned, so we should be
fine.
It's actually not "signed vs unsigned",
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 04:00:31PM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
This happens on 64-bit big-endian machines.
SO_RCVLOWAT requires an int parameter. However, instead of int, the test
uses unsigned long in one place and size_t in another. Both are 8 bytes
long on 64-bit machines. The kernel, ha
This happens on 64-bit big-endian machines.
SO_RCVLOWAT requires an int parameter. However, instead of int, the test
uses unsigned long in one place and size_t in another. Both are 8 bytes
long on 64-bit machines. The kernel, having received the 8 bytes, doesn't
test for the exact size of the param
4 matches
Mail list logo
