Hello, On Wednesday, 2008 July 23 at 16:43:56 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Eric Leblond wrote: >>> The main concern here is about IPFIX which is in really bad shape. I've fix >>> some major error in one of the patch but it remains untested for now and I >>> don't think it can work properly. >> >> Indeed. It's broken Do you plan to look into this? No, I've got enough work with other modules ;) I will soon send a complete a patchset about the hardware header issue. >> If not, I'll fix it >> myself. Please, let me know since I don't want to duplicate work. Do you >> also plan to send me a patch to fix all those warnings? Yes. > I think would prefer to enable the warnings that make sense > individually, -Wextra includes lots if crap like "%s expects > type char *, but argument is void *" or signedness warnings > that are compiler-detectable irrelevant 50% of the time. > > OTOH a lot of the warnings in the current -git version indicate > that the code really needs more love, like missing return values > etc, so it seems we really want *some* of the new warnings. That's right, I plan to do some warning hunting and code cleaning when I will have finish my current work. BR, -- Eric Leblond INL: http://www.inl.fr/ NuFW: http://www.nufw.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
