lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectStrange ipfw change (Sparc bugfix?)
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.039 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site