On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Curt McDowell <c...@purestorage.com> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> Thanks for getting to this. I applied the patch and was surprised to see it
>> still has the same bug! There is another comparison function that needs
>> fixing. I verified that 64-bit inodes work properly with this additional
>> change:
>>
>> static int
>> dev_ino_hash_compare (void const *x, void const *y)
>> {
>> int result;
>> result = memcmp(&((struct dev_ino const *) x)->di_ino,
>> &((struct dev_ino const *) y)->di_ino, sizeof (ino_t));
>> if (result)
>> return result;
>> result = memcmp(&((struct dev_ino const *) x)->di_dev,
>> &((struct dev_ino const *) y)->di_dev, sizeof (ino_t));
>> return result;
>> }
>
> Thank you for the quick testing and patch.
>
> I've simplified that but left it in your name. However, since it's
> still in your name, yet modified, I'll wait for your ACK before
> pushing (check both author-name+email and wording of the commit log as
> well as the actual patch, since we treat master-pushed commits as
> immutable):
Ping?
_______________________________________________
bug-idutils mailing list
bug-idutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-idutils
