On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:55:35 +0100 Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > jamal wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-13-03 at 14:44 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > > > >>You are wrong on both counts. > > > > > > I am wrong on why it is being rejected - but what you are seeing is > > worse than i thought initially. > > > > Lets put it this way: > > The only you will _ever_ get that message is if you had made a syntax > > error (which you did not). Please look at the code on where that message > > appears and: > > > > a) tell me how you would have got that message to begin with using > > perfectly legal syntax. > > a) tell me how a memset would have fixed that. > > He already told you, pack_key expects the selector to be initialized, > otherwise nkeys might contain a value >= 128, which would cause > exactly this error, if a matching key is not found within the > uninitialized memory by accident. > > > Just send the memset fix to Stephen with a different reason. Your > > current reason is _wrong_ and i really dont have much time to have this > > kind of discussion. > > If you had said "I added that memset there because it looks like the > > right thing to do" then we would not have had this discussion. > > > > You made claims you fixed a bug. It cant possibly be the bug you fixed. > > Was it some other bug perhaps and you mixed up the two? The memset fix is in current CVS. I just wasn't going to take the patch that looked at utsname to decide what hash to use. > The patch as well as the description are perfectly fine. > > BTW, running valgrind on tc shows lots of uses of uninitialized values, > it seems like a good idea if someone would go over these and fix them > up. If we had a test script of commands (code coverage), that would help. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
