Re: [PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:54:25AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > > > htonll() is nothing else than cpu_to_be64(), so we'd rather call the > > latter. > > Actually, the htonll() implementation does not seem to be doing what >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > htonll() is nothing else than cpu_to_be64(), so we'd rather call the > latter. Actually, the htonll() implementation does not seem to be doing what cpu_to_be64() is doing.. However, I would assume this is a bug in htonll() and this

[PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

Hi Dave, please apply the appended patch. I somehow thought I had fixed this quite some time ago. Probably I lost it with some merge :( Thanks, -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://netfilter.org/

[PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

Hi Dave, please apply the appended patch. I somehow thought I had fixed this quite some time ago. Probably I lost it with some merge :( Thanks, -- - Harald Welte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://netfilter.org/

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: htonll() is nothing else than cpu_to_be64(), so we'd rather call the latter. Actually, the htonll() implementation does not seem to be doing what cpu_to_be64() is doing.. However, I would assume this is a bug in htonll() and this

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [NETFILTER] remove bogus hand-coded htonll()

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:54:25AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: htonll() is nothing else than cpu_to_be64(), so we'd rather call the latter. Actually, the htonll() implementation does not seem to be doing what cpu_to_be64() is