| To: | Cornelia Huck <COHUCK@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Bug in qeth in 2.6 |
| From: | Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:45:12 -0400 |
| Cc: | Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Utz Bacher <utz.bacher@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <OFCF0074F3.0CE8CF77-ONC1256D97.00308924-C1256D97.0030F005@xxxxxxxxxx>; from COHUCK@xxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:54:43AM +0200 |
| References: | <OFCF0074F3.0CE8CF77-ONC1256D97.00308924-C1256D97.0030F005@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:54:43AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> could you please elaborate what's exactly wrong with qeth_verify_dev()?
>
> It has the same behaviour as in 2.4, and it looks correct to us...
2.4 was like this:
result = 0;
for (all in list) {
if (something)
result = QETH_VERIFY_IS_SOMETHING;
}
2.6 is:
result = 0;
for (all in list) {
result = (something)? QETH_VERIFY_IS_SOMETHING: foo();
}
Results are different if two cards are present on the list
and the function is asked to verify the first card.
-- Pete
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] (2/8) convert sdla to new initialization, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Bug in qeth in 2.6, Pete Zaitcev |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Bug in qeth in 2.6, Cornelia Huck |
| Next by Thread: | Bug in qeth in 2.6, Pete Zaitcev |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |