On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:37:17PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:22:16PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:05:23PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:56:29PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 10:04:14AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 11:28:36PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > > > These were identified by Coverity tool, no problems in practice. Still > > > > > > > worth fixing to reduce noise in code checkers. > > > > > > > > > > > > LGTM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you run ipset xlate tests? These should not break those but just > > > > > > in case. > > > > > > > > > > I didn't, thanks for the reminder. Testsuite fails, but it does with > > > > > HEAD as well. And so does the other testsuite ("make tests"), BtW. I'll > > > > > investigate. > > > > > > > > Does this work after your testsuite updates? If so, push them out. > > > > > > Yes, it does. Should I push the testsuite updates, too? I'm uncertain > > > about the s/vrrp/carp/, don't want to break anyone's test setup. > > > > I can see some distros still use vrrp en /etc/protocols, yes, I'm > > ambivalent on this one. > > Maybe better just use a different protocol which didn't get "renamed" > recently? It's for testing purposes only and the actual value doesn't > matter much, right? I agree that's fine for a test, yes.