Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Strange ipfw change (Sparc bugfix?) | Date | Tue, 08 Sep 1998 05:49:39 -0700 |
| |
From 2.1.120 patch:
@@ -1512,14 +1512,14 @@ "%9s " /* Chain name */ "%08lX/%08lX->%08lX/%08lX " /* Source & Destination IPs */ "%.16s " /* Interface */ - "%hX %hX " /* fw_flg and fw_invflg fields */ - "%hu " /* Protocol */ + "%X %X " /* fw_flg and fw_invflg fields */ + "%u " /* Protocol */ "%-9u %-9u %-9u %-9u " /* Packet & byte counters */ - "%hu-%hu %hu-%hu " /* Source & Dest port ranges */ + "%u-%u %u-%u " /* Source & Dest port ranges */ "A%02X X%02X " /* TOS and and xor masks */ "%08X " /* Redirection port */ "%u " /* fw_mark field */ - "%hu " /* output size */ + "%u " /* output size */ "%9s\n", /* Target */ chainlabel, ntohl(rule->ipfw.fw_src.s_addr),
I am worried that this `fix' (presumably to fix reported /proc/net/ip_fwchains breakage on sparcs) covers up a real printk() problem with `%hu'.
Whoever was responsible, please put my mind at ease. Rusty. -- .sig lost in the mail.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html
| |