From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
> Looks good, applied, thanks.
Actually, no, this is completely broken:
net/sctp/proc.c: In function ʽsctp_assocs_seq_showʼ:
net/sctp/proc.c:363:18: error: expected ʽ)ʼ before ʽ;ʼ token
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%luʼ expects argument of type ʽlong unsigned intʼ, but argument 3 has type ʽintʼ [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: warning: format ʽ%dʼ expects a matching ʽintʼ argument [-Wformat]
net/sctp/proc.c:365:2: error: expected ʽ;ʼ before ʽ}ʼ token
make[1]: *** [net/sctp/proc.o] Error 1
make: *** [net/sctp/proc.o] Error 2
You didn't even compile test this.
I think I'll ignore your submissions for a while, your analysis is
extremely poor if you don't think you need to build test after
"simple" edits of your changes.
?τθΊ{.nΗ+?·????+%?Λ?±ιέΆ??w?Ί{.nΗ+?·??{±ώΗ-§ψ§Ά?ʽά¨}©?²Ζ zΪ&j:+v?¨ώψ ―ω ?w?ώ?ΰ2?ή?¨θΪ&ʼ)ίʽ«aΆΪ??ϋΰzΏδzΉή?ϊ+?ω???έʼj??wθώf
