Re: Strange ipfw change (Sparc bugfix?)

Marc Duponcheel (mduponch@cisco.com)
Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:03:11 +0200

On Tue, Sep 08, 1998 at 06:20:01PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Rusty Russell <Paul.Russell@rustcorp.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 05:49:39 -0700
>
> 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.
>
> No it doesn't cover up any printk() bug, ANSI C says what you were
> doing there is illegal.

When I was first 'debugging' the 'ipfw sparc bug' I also thought that
printk() was writing bad the zeroes to /proc/net/ip_fwchains (using
vsprintf). But, since the patch has fixed ipchains, I guess things are
all right now.

Sorry my ignorance but what does qualifier 'h' (implemented by
vsprintf in kernel) actually mean in the printf family?
the code goes like this:

if (qualifier == 'h') {
if (flags & SIGN)
num = va_arg(args, short);
else
num = va_arg(args, unsigned short);
}

Greetings,

--- Cisco Systems ---
Marc Duponcheel mduponch@cisco.com tel: +32 2 778 42 40
CATS Team TAC Brussels ---*--- pager: +32 452 53 30 01

-
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