Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In parse_binary() there is:
>>
>> forward = parse_binary_hunk(&buffer, &size, &status, &used);
>> if (!forward && !status)
>> /* there has to be one hunk (forward hunk) */
>> return error(_("unrecognized binary patch at line %d"), linenr-1);
>>
>> so parse_binary() can return -1, because that's what error() returns.
>>
>> Also parse_binary_hunk() sets "status" to -1 in case of error and
>> parse_binary() does "if (status) return status;".
>>
>> In this case parse_chunk() should not add -1 to the patchsize it computes.
>> It is better for future libification efforts to make it just return -1.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Only the title of the patch changed in this version compared to v2.
>
> It looks like this patch is not in pu. Maybe it has fallen through the cracks?
Yup, it indeed was ignored (giving priority to work towards 2.8
during the freeze) and then was forgotten.
My comment on the first one that exited mentions "your follow-up
patch", but I cannot quite tell which one, as there was no threading
in your original patches. Does this change need to come before
something else that I already have?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html