On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 07:39 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let > > > > us know. > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream. > > > > > > > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in parenthesis > > > > to avoid unpleasant surprises. > > > > > > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing > > > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'? > > > > In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the current > > code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix in the kernel > > could cause a serious regression when backported to -stable. For instance, > > if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) : > [...] > > I agree, but would like to know whether there is an immediate effect.
No immediate breakage, AFAIK. Dmitry found the issue by inspection. Sarah Sharp _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
