From: Dan Rosenberg <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:34:29 -0500
> >> I want whatever you replace it with to be equivalent for >> object tracking purposes. > > In nearly all of the cases I fixed, the socket inode is already > provided, which serves as a perfectly good unique identifier. Would you > prefer I include that information twice? The problem is that the socket inode is not available in a certain subclass of cases, so the transformation is not equivalent. Why not attack this at the heart of where your concern is, and hack the %p format handling to do whatever it is you like instead of patching code all over the tree? _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
