Hi, You're right with the comments. I'll correct them. The patch is using a while loop because the 1.5 dev branch uses the same code.
regards, Thomas On 10.01.2012 04:35, Philip Prindeville wrote: > Inline... > > On 1/9/12 3:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Author: heil >> Date: 2012-01-09 23:00:25 +0100 (Mon, 09 Jan 2012) >> New Revision: 29702 >> >> Added: >> packages/net/haproxy/patches/ >> packages/net/haproxy/patches/001-haproxy-1.4.x-sendproxy.patch >> Modified: >> packages/net/haproxy/Makefile >> packages/net/haproxy/files/haproxy.cfg >> Log: >> package: haproxy >> - bump to version 1.4.19 >> - ensure haproxy is not listen on port 80 by default >> - add sendproxy patch written by Cyril Bonte >> >> >> >> Modified: packages/net/haproxy/files/haproxy.cfg >> =================================================================== >> --- packages/net/haproxy/files/haproxy.cfg 2012-01-09 05:42:04 UTC (rev >> 29701) >> +++ packages/net/haproxy/files/haproxy.cfg 2012-01-09 22:00:25 UTC (rev >> 29702) >> @@ -42,7 +43,7 @@ >> listen my_http_proxy >> >> # Bind to port 80 and 443 on all interfaces (0.0.0.0) >> - bind :80,:443 >> + bind :81,:444 >> >> # We're proxying HTTP here... >> mode http >> @@ -69,7 +70,7 @@ >> disabled >> >> # Bind to port 25 and 587 on localhost >> - bind 127.0.0.1:25,127.0.0.1:587 >> + bind 127.0.0.1:26,127.0.0.1:588 >> >> # This is a TCP proxy >> mode tcp >> > Should the comments agree with the commands? > > >> +Index: haproxy-1.4.19/include/common/standard.h >> +=================================================================== >> +--- haproxy-1.4.19.orig/include/common/standard.h >> ++++ haproxy-1.4.19/include/common/standard.h >> +@@ -269,6 +269,28 @@ static inline unsigned int __strl2uic(co >> + return i; >> + } >> + >> ++/* This function reads an unsigned integer from the string pointed to by >> <s> >> ++ * and returns it. The <s> pointer is adjusted to point to the first unread >> ++ * char. The function automatically stops at <end>. >> ++ */ >> ++static inline unsigned int __read_uint(const char **s, const char *end) >> ++{ >> ++ const char *ptr = *s; >> ++ unsigned int i = 0; >> ++ unsigned int j, k; >> ++ >> ++ while (ptr < end) { > Is there a reason not to use a 'for' loop here? I.e. > > for (ptr = s; ptr < end; ptr++) > > instead? > > >> ++ j = *ptr - '0'; >> ++ k = i * 10; >> ++ if (j > 9) >> ++ break; >> ++ i = k + j; >> ++ ptr++; >> ++ } >> ++ *s = ptr; >> ++ return i; >> ++} >> ++ >> + extern unsigned int str2ui(const char *s); >> + extern unsigned int str2uic(const char *s); >> + extern unsigned int strl2ui(const char *s, int len); > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > -- Thomas Heil - ! note my new number ! Skype: phiber.sun Email: [email protected] Tel: 0176 / 44555622 -- _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
