On Wednesday 03 July 2013, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > which the patches are applied does not matter. Therefore I
> > thought that people could either review by patch from the above
> > directory or by source file from the combined patch, just as
> > they are comfortable. I would then commit the patches bit by
> > bit. Or is there a better suggestion?
> For me it is easiest to review on a directory/file basis.  Also
> partial commit should be easy that way.

Based on the responses, I will send batches of mails to tech. But 
people are still invited to review based on what is on my web site, 
too, be it by source file or by patch. That will simply reduce the 
mails sent to the list.

> Starting with netinet I found this:
> -                       panic("ip_output: tag of length %d (should
> be %d",
> +                       panic("ip_output: tag of length %d
> (should be %zd", mtag->m_tag_len, sizeof (struct tdb_ident));
> m_tag_len and sizeof are unsigned.  We should fix that with %u and
> %zu also.  And the same code is in ip6_output and ip6_forward.

I haven't done any signedness fixes so far, only the size fixes. But I 
will look over the patches again and try to fix the signedness issues 
in the touched code lines, too. There are quite a few I guess.

Reply via email to