On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:56:53 +, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Thanks. I'd suggest you for the next time to not to mix withespace or
> style changes with a functional change.
>
> That said it'd be great if you could look at other free(9) calls missing
> the size argument.
The diff below deals with
On 11/12/17(Mon) 15:46, kshe wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:25:50 +, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 08/12/17(Fri) 12:58, kshe wrote:
> > > I noticed one instance where the size given to free(9) can easily be
> > > determined.
> >
> > What about the other free(9)s in the same function?
>
>
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:25:50 +, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 08/12/17(Fri) 12:58, kshe wrote:
> > I noticed one instance where the size given to free(9) can easily be
> > determined.
>
> What about the other free(9)s in the same function?
Somehow I did not immediately realize that rtm_report()
On 08/12/17(Fri) 12:58, kshe wrote:
> I noticed one instance where the size given to free(9) can easily be
> determined.
What about the other free(9)s in the same function?
Hi,
I noticed one instance where the size given to free(9) can easily be
determined. While here, this diff also removes an outdated comment
(since r1.230) as well as a dead initialisation in rtm_addr().
Index: src/sys/net/rtsock.c
