On Thursday 24 June 2004 10:25 am, David Botsch wrote: > Other than breaking ethtool, does the patch currently there break > anything? There was no log on it, so I'm assuming not...having said that I could be very wrong ;-) It does appear just to be an issue with ethtool not getting the returned data back. - Si > > On 2004.06.23 21:44 Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > > > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 20:44, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > > > Possibly not a very critical bug (I do not know that really) > > > > but a bug nevertheless. It does not look that regs.len is > > > > used very extensively. Presumably it is set in a preceding > > > > copy_from_user() call and not used really in any other place. > > > > > > Ethtool is expecting bytes there, so it looks to me that the > > > > revised > > > > > patch is necessary for "ethtool -d" to return correct data... > > > > This was the reason I changed it in the Fedora kernel. > > The version of the patch you have was in the fedora kernel for > > a while too, I silently fixed it up in the next revision > > (as it only hit -testing). Looks like you picked it up before > > I fixed it up. Good job someone was paying attention 8) > > In future, I'll try and give you a heads up if I change something > > like that again without making extra changelog entries. > > > > Dave > > > > > > -- > > > > fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list -- Simon Weller LPIC-2, BCIP Systems Engineer NZServers LTD http://www.nzservers.com/ U.S. Branch <- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, Security Focus -> -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
