On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:13:57AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 5:01 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:26:46AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 3:43 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > ... But if you consider this code will
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 5:01 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:26:46AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 3:43 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > ... But if you consider this code will probably become classical
> > > and will be read, quoted and teached
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:26:46AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 3:43 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > ... But if you consider this code will probably become classical
> > and will be read, quoted and teached next 1000 years, then the style
> > could matter...
>
> This from
On 1/9/07, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 3:43 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> ... But if you consider this code will probably become classical
> and will be read, quoted and teached next 1000 years, then the style
> could matter...
This from the guy who believes "
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 3:43 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> ... But if you consider this code will probably become classical
> and will be read, quoted and teached next 1000 years, then the style
> could matter...
This from the guy who believes "Justin Timberlake rocks!" ;)
All right, you convi
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 09:47:29AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
...
> I guess it all depends on who is reading it ;)
Sure! I only had a feeling your way is maybe slightly
less often used so I wanted some opinion.
> Personally, I don't care too
> much either way as long as it is fixed.
Yes, you've d
On Monday, January 8 2007 8:25 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 04-01-2007 21:04, Paul Moore wrote:
> > +++ net-2.6.20_bugfix_2/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ lookup_protocol:
> > sk->sk_reuse = 1;
> >
> > inet = inet_sk(sk);
> > - inet->is_icsk = INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & an
On 04-01-2007 21:04, Paul Moore wrote:
...
> +++ net-2.6.20_bugfix_2/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ lookup_protocol:
> sk->sk_reuse = 1;
>
> inet = inet_sk(sk);
> - inet->is_icsk = INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & answer_flags;
> + inet->is_icsk = (INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & ans
From: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 00:32:31 -0200
> I expected a warning since the and operation clearly could yield a
> value that would overflow, just like in the constant case...
It sounds stupid, but once you introduce variables and not
everything is co
On 1/4/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Paul Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:04:31 -0500
> From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The inet_create() and inet6_create() functions incorrectly set the
> inet_sock->is_icsk field. Both functions assume that th
From: "Paul Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:04:31 -0500
> From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The inet_create() and inet6_create() functions incorrectly set the
> inet_sock->is_icsk field. Both functions assume that the is_icsk field is
> large enough to hold at least a
From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The inet_create() and inet6_create() functions incorrectly set the
inet_sock->is_icsk field. Both functions assume that the is_icsk field is
large enough to hold at least a INET_PROTOSW_ICSK value when it is actually
only a single bit. This patch corrects the
12 matches
Mail list logo
