On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote:
> 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?
Pushed, in spite of no reply.
_______________________________________________
bug-idutils mailing list
bug-idutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-idutils
