On Monday 06 August 2007 10:18:18 Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I MUST GOING CRAZY!!!!
> PLEASE WAKE ME UP!!!!
Hi,
i don't see a reason to get loud here ;-)
(and btw no need to CC me for an answer, i'm reading the list)
It just wasn't clear what you meant (at least to me).
> Here is the original function:
> ..
> Here is the usage:
>
> resume.c::584:
> printf("resume: MD5 checksum %s\n",
> print_checksum(buffer, orig_checksum));
> ...
> Does anybody but me can also tell that the checksum will never be printed?
Ok, so there's a gap between functiondesign and its usage, that's right. I
didn't
look at the correct usage. (The definition of print_cheksum alone didn't show
at all what you were talking about ;-)
> I can explain more if you like... How printf works, how it scans for
> parameters etc...
No need at all, thanks. But - at least to me - it just was not clear at all of
what
printf you were talking about (or to be more precise i thought you meant the
sprintf in print_cheksum).
So theres no reason to talk at this level.
> This problem can be solved using my patch or if you so like this
> kernel programming you can do this without changing the print_checksum
> function
i wouldn't call this kernel programming, but to come back to the topic
again.. yes, this should get fixed. Either by your patch or by fixing the usage.
As the original/current usage of print_checksum is - IMHO - more intuitive, so
i'd actually vote for Alons patch now.
Thanks,
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Suspend-devel mailing list
Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
