On 12/4/05, David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:03:07 -0200
>
> > Dave can we expect a rebase of 2.6.16.git to get these
> > things there?
>
> Done, the net-2.6.16 tree has been rebased.
Thanks Dave.
- Arnaldo
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:03:07 -0200
> Dave can we expect a rebase of 2.6.16.git to get these
> things there?
Done, the net-2.6.16 tree has been rebased.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:03:07 -0200
> Dave can we expect a rebase of 2.6.16.git to get these
> things there? I'll need it to load, hum, dccpv6.ko :-)
I'll see what I can do over this weekend :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On 12/2/05, David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:21:50 +0900 (JST)
>
> > Here it is:
> >
> > [IPV6]: Load protocol module dynamically.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Applied, thanks a l
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 06:34:39PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> The error makes a lot of sense, because it allows you to actually
> distinguish between the two cases. It's not possible to do so
> with only the EPROTONOSUPPORT indication.
Fair enough. How about something like this then?
[IP
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:21:50 +0900 (JST)
> Here it is:
>
> [IPV6]: Load protocol module dynamically.
>
> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks a lot Yoshifuji-san.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:42:48 +1100
> However, ESOCKTNOSUPPORT is not defined by POSIX, so perhaps we
> should always return EPROTONOSUPPORT.
>
> What do you think Dave?
We've traditionally returned ESOCKTNOSUPPORT for this case. I don't
see any convincing
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:04:30 -0800 (PST)),
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> net/ipv6/af_inet.c:inet6_create() has a similar problem and
> it also is missing the module load logic the ipv4 counterpart
> has.
>
> Anyone up for cooking up a fix for those
From: "Jayachandran C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:11:40 -0800
> This patch
> - removes the "if(!protocol)" check
> - adds a check when answer == NULL, to see if the list is empty
> to return -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT or -EPROTONOSUPPORT
>
> Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C.
Patc
Jayachandran C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Problem Description:
> In the existing code, if the protocol is not supported, "answer"
> will be NULL and an error code of -ESOCKTNOSUPPORT will be returned.
> The condition "if(!protocol)" which returns -EPROTONOSUPPORT will
> never be reached becau
This patch tries to fix an issue reported in net/ipv4/af_inet.c by
Coverity, please review and apply if correct.
Error reported:
CID: 1728
Checker: DEADCODE
File: net/ipv4/af_inet.c
Function: inet_create
Description: After this line (or expression), the value of "protocol"
cannot be
11 matches
Mail list logo