Liu Siwei wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM, George Vasick <George.Vasick at sun.com > <mailto:George.Vasick at sun.com>> wrote: > > Liu Siwei wrote: > > Hi, > > The updated wevrev looks fine, there's some minor > comments/questions from my gut: > > Makefile.sfw: > > Seems like $(PATCH) should be sufficient for these two lines? > > 76 $(GPATCH) -N $(VER)/src/libnet_link_dlpi.c < > libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch > > 86 $(GPATCH) -N $(VER64)/src/libnet_link_dlpi.c < > libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch > > > $(PATCH) is not defined in Makefile.master. With the other > modifications in place, it appears I can use either patch or > $(GPATCH). Since the patches appear to have been generated with > gdiff originally, I thought using $(GPATCH) would be more consistent. > > > It's interesting that I cannot tell libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch was > originally generated by which. But using $(GPATCH) seems to be more > consistent, just as you said.
You're right. The other two patch files appear to have been created by gdiff, but there is no way to tell about libnet_link_dlpi.c.patch. I verified that diff produces the same results as gdiff when the --recursive flag is removed, so I reverted the $(GPATCH) change in Makefile.sfw. > > [...] > > Thanks for doing that, the webrev all looks pretty fine. > > FWIW I am about to fix the other two libnet bugs: 6883325 and 6776222. > I've no idea a merge with yours is neccessary or not, but seems it is. > Do you have a putback target right now? Here is the new webrev with the gpatch change reverted and makefile.am.patch removed: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gvasick/6828622/ I can submit the RTI today if that works for you. Otherwise, I can send you my modified files and you can submit all 3 bug fixes at once if you like. Thanks, George
